SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has repeatedly submitted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. He has also repeatedly submitted that the disputed document is on the judicial file. However, keeping in view the very serious allegations made against a practicing Advocate of the Court, the concession of anticipatory bail cannot be granted. The allegations made against the petitioner are yet to be probed. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur, shows that the investigation is still at an initial stage. An enquiry has also been conducted by the District & Sessions Judge Vigilance Punjab. In his report dated 02.08.1999, the Vigilance Judge, has, prima to the conclusion that the petitioner has taken the document enquiry the iscirequiredvil suit with the connivance of some Court official, therefore, to identify the Court official with whose connivance the document fro the civil suit with the connivance of some Court official, therefore, further enquiry is required to identity the Court official with whose connivance the document was removed from one proceeding and produced in the other proceeding.

(2.) Without making any observation on the conduct of the petitioner, at this stage, I find that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Petition dismissed.