ANOOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of all the three afore-mentioned petitions filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.204 dated 26.11.2011 under Sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dismissing anticipatory bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that Dalip Singh son of Prem Singh had an electricity connection in his name, who had earlier sold his land to Jarnail Singh, co- accused. Further submits that as per allegation in the FIR, Avtar Singh son of Jarnail Singh had forged affidavit of Dalip Singh and got the electricity connection transferred in his name. However, when this fact was brought to the notice of officials of electricity department, the electricity connection was re- transferred in the name of Dalip Singh and hence, it is contended that it cannot be said that any offence has been CRM No.M-12481 of 2012 3 committed by the present petitioner being official of the electricity department, in view of the fact that as per own version of complainant, Avtar Singh son of Jarnail Singh, co- accused had forged his affidavit and on the basis of that the electricity connection was transferred in his name. It is also contended that all the documents are in the possession of the police and the remaining documents, if any, are in possession of the department and hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.