Chanan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 December, 2010

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Chanan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 December, 2010

Bench: Jaswant Singh

Crl.M.No.34507-M of 2010                                  #1#

      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

                       HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                         Crl.M.No.34507-M of 2010
                                         Date of Order: 10.12.2010
Chanan Singh

                                                          .....Petitioner

                                        Vs.

State of Punjab

                                                          .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:       Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for

               Mr. S.P.S Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

               Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.

JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL)

Prayer under Section 438 Cr.P.C is for grant of anticipatory/pre arrest bail in case FIR No.75 dated 13.10.2010 under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/474 IPC, P.S Kulgarhi, District Ferozepur.

As per allegations in the FIR made by the District Welfare Officer, petitioner by producing a Balmiki Certificate obtained a grant for the marriage of his daughter under the Shagun scheme meant for SC/STs.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a poor landless labourer and was under the impression that he was entitled to the grant under the scheme. He further contends that the petitioner has not prepared the alleged forged certificate but only gave an application to the Sarpanch of the Village. He further submits that by joining the investigation, the petitioner is willing to disclose all facts.

Learned state counsel, on instructions from HC Jagtar Singh, Crl.M.No.34507-M of 2010 #2# opposes bail application and states that the petitioners had made an application claiming that he was a Balmiki and therefore entitled to the benefit under the scheme and that along with application, an Certificate claiming himself to be Scheduled Caste had also been submitted. Further states that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for effective investigation.

Without commenting upon merit of the case and taking into account the gravity of the offence and the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for effective investigation, I do not deem it appropriate to grant the concession of pre arrest bail to the petitioner.

Dismissed.

December 10, 2010                                    ( JASWANT SINGH )
manoj                                                      JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court