RANJIT SINGH VIRK Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG assisted by Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate. The learned AAG has argued that the petitioner has not filed a petition for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and, therefore, he cannot come directly to this Court. However, on reading Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it cannot be laid down that applying to the Court of Sessions for anticipatory bail should be a condition precedent for filing such an application to this Court. Therefore, this argument cannot be accepted.

(2.) THE learned Advocate Mr. Sidhu has argued that the petitioner has forged the power of attorney and he should not be given the benefit of bail. However, in case anticipatory bail is granted with the conditions mentioned below, the interests of the prosecution/investigation will not be hampered. Therefore, there appears to be no reason for rejecting the anticipatory bail application when conditions are to be imposed for the same.

(3.) IT is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 11 dated 27.2.1997 of Police Station Goraya District Jalandhar, for the offences under Sections 420/467/468 and 471-IPC he be released on bail by the police on his furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 40,000/- with one surety in the like amount.