CRM-M25320 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M 25320 of 2009
Decided on 06.10.2009
Jagmail Kaur and another --Petitioners
vs.
State of Punjab --Respondent
CORAM:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present:Mr: Deepak Aggarwal,Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.A.G.Punjab.
Mr.G.B.S.Gll,Advocate,for the complainant.
Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:
The petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.
97 dated 27.8.2009, registered under Sections 420,467,468, 120-B,471
IPC, at Police Station, Nathana, District Bathinda.
The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the application of
Baldev Singh filed under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) against Jagmail Kaur wife of Ajaib
Singh (petitioner No.1), Kuldeep Kaur wife of Sukhmandar Singh, Ajaib
Singh son of Mehar Singh (non-applicant). The allegations contained in the
FIR are that on 26.5.2009, election for the Gram Panchayat of village
Lehra Bega, Tehsil and District Bathinda was held in which Jagmail Kaur
(petitioner No.1) and her daughter-in-law Kuldeep Kaur (petitioner No.2)
CRM-M25320 of 2009 2
filed their nomination papers as contesting candidates in the reserve
category since it is required that a candidate who is contesting the election in
the reserved category should attach certificate of Scheduled Caste issued by
appropriate authority, therefore, petitioner No.1 attached her caste certificate
bearing No.2488 dated 13.9.2001 which was, in fact, issued to Budh Singh
son of Amar Singh, by Tehsildar and Kuldeep Kaur (petitioner No.2.) filed
her caste certificate bearing No.2437 dated 13.9.2001 which was, in fact,
issued to Harpreet Kaur wife of Mandar Singh ,resident of Lehra Bega. It is
further alleged in the complaint that both of them have erased names of the
persons in whose favour the aforesaid certificate Nos. 2488 and 2437 dated
13.9.2001 respectively were issued and subscribed their names therein.
Therefore, the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences by forging
government documents for the purpose of contesting election.
Before coming to this Court, the petitioners had applied for
anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide his order dated 4.9.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter-alia, argued that the
present FIR has been lodged by the complainant out of frustration because
both petitioner No.1 and the complainant were elected as Panches and
when petitioner No.1.was elected unopposed as Sarpanch, the complainant
had filed an election petition which was dismissed in default for non-
appearance by the Election Tribunal, Bathinda, vide order dated 10.12.2008
(Annexure P-1) and the application for restoration of the said election
petition too was dismissed vide order dated 27.7.2009 (Annexure P-2) . It is
also submitted that both the petitioners are Mazhabi Sikh. They had attached
Scheduled Caste Certificates of their husbands (Annexures P-3 and P-4)
CRM-M25320 of 2009 3
and have not committed any cheating muchless forgery in the government
record. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that
petitioner No.1 was elected as Panch and petitioner No.2. who was her
covering candidate had withdrawn her nomination paper.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, assisted by learned
counsel for the complainant, has vehemently argued that it is an apparent
case of cheating and forgery as the nomination papers which are attached
with the election petition are certificates bearing Nos.2488 and 2437 dated
13.9.2001 respectively, which on enquiry, were found to have been issued to
Budh Singh son of Amar Singh and Harpreet Kaur wife of Mandar Singh
and not to the petitioners by the Naib Tehsildar, Nathana. Therefore, the
offences committed by the petitioners are writ large.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view
the facts and circumstances of the case in which the allegations are of very
serious nature of forging government record and cheating general public
who had reposed their faith and confidence in them by electing them to the
post of Panch and Sarpanch,
I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence
the bail application is hereby dismissed.
However, nothing observed here-in-above, shall be construed to be
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case before the Court below.
06.10.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge