ANIL KUMAR BANSAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for anticipatory bail by one of the accused involved in F.I.R. No. 107 dated 1.7.1996, Police Station Kotwali, Balhinda, under Sections 466, 468 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The petitioner is working as Ahlmad in the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Bathinda and on the day of incident, he was working as Reader of the Court. The allegation against the petitioner is that he connived with the doctor for getting the seal affixed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had initially granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner but in the final order the same was cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that during the interim order he had joined the investigation. Learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State has argued that looking to the allegation against the petitioner he should not be granted benefit of bail.

(3.) Looking to the facts of the ease, I find that granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the conditions mentioned below will serve the purpose.