Harvinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Tersely, the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for the

grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner and emanating from the record, are that, on 9.10.2012, a police party headed by the SHO of Police

Station Shambhu received a secret information that the proprietor of Arora Gun House, Guru Nanak Market, Opposite Nandan Cinema, Ram

Bagh, Amritsar, in connivance with other accused used to prepare the fake arms licenses of persons living in other Districts/States, outside Punjab,

by showing them to be residents of Amritsar District, by forging their documents. All the accused illegally used to sell arms and ammunition.

Thereafter, these fake arms licenses are transferred to others. According to the prosecution, the specific information was that the owner of the

Arora Gun House has got prepared the arms licenses of Parveen Kumar Chauhan, resident of Jasola, Near Apollo Hospital Delhi and Tirmohan,

resident of Chhalera, Near Noida, by wrongly showing their residence in District Amritsar. The main accused has also sold the arms and

ammunition to them. He has been indulging in dealing this illegal business of getting prepared the arms licenses on the basis of fake addresses.

Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in detail in all, the prosecution claimed that the petitioner along with his other

co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy, used to cheat, indulge in the illegal trade and racket of procuring the forged fire arms & their illegal sale

after forging the licenses, in favour of the customers. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of ruqqa of SHO Police Station

Shambhu, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and his other co-accused, by means of FIR No. 153 dated 9.10.2012 for the

commission of the offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC by the police of Police Station Shambhu, District

Patiala in the manner depicted here-in-above.

Having exercised and remained unsuccessful of his right before the Additional Sessions Judge, now the petitioner has preferred the present

petition for anticipatory bail in the pointed criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire

matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect.

Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and since there was no cogent evidence on

record against him, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, lacks merit.

As indicated here-in-above, according to the prosecution that the petitioner along with his other co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy, used

to cheat, indulge in the illegal trade and racket of procuring the forged fire arms & their illegal sale after forging the licenses in favour of the

customers.

Not only that, the perusal of impugned order dated 1.12.2012 (Annexure P1) of Additional Sessions Judge would reveal that there are direct

allegations that the petitioner has procured the forged licenses from the Licensing Authority by furnishing fake addresses and purchased fire

arms/weapons from main accused-owner of Arora Gun House in connivance with the Clerk attached to the Licensing Authority.

Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that petitioner Harvinder Singh is working as Clerk in the office of Licensing Authority/Deputy

Commissioner, Amritsar. The prosecution claimed that he has forged and fabricated the official record in this relevant connection. It appears to be

a case of deep-rooted criminal conspiracy of preparing and issuing fake arms licenses and weapons by forging the documents. Therefore, to me,

the custodial interrogation of petitioner is essential to ascertain his involvement in forging and fabricating the official record, modus operandi,

manner of operation of scam and his involvement in such like other scams. In case, he is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, then, the recovery

of indicated documents and effective investigation is not possible, which would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution.

It is now well settled principle of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of

pointed documents from the petitioner and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the

police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the

judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. At the same time, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the

investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course

of trial of main case, the present petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on the merits of the case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the

same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition in this relevant direction.