High CourtsSingle Bench

Swaran Singh vs The State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 2 July 2013 · Citation: (2013) 07 P&H CK 0625

HON’BLE JUDGES
Daya Chaudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 420
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-20571 of 2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 358 words

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 36 dated 29.03.2011 registered under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Cantt., Ferozepur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the FIR but he was found innocent in the investigation and thereafter, he was summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not aware about the proceedings u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, he filed his affidavit. Nothing is to be recovered from him and no custodial interrogation is required. Learned counsel also submits that a cancellation report was also prepared by the SHO concerned but instead of filing the cancellation report, challan is being filed against him.

2.

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the contents of the FIR and allegations against the petitioner.

3.

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware about the proceedings and the petitioner being a Police official of ASI Rank cannot take this plea that he was not aware and affidavit was filed before the authorities concerned wherein it was stated that no criminal case was pending against him and on the basis of that affidavit, all retiral benefits were disbursed to him. The petitioner has filed the affidavit contrary to the facts and the material facts have also been concealed. The affidavit was given just to withdraw the benefits whereas those benefits would not have been disbursed to him in case, these facts were mentioned in the affidavit. Hence, the concession of anticipatory bail cannot be granted to a person, who has not approached this Court with clean hands and by filing a wrong and false affidavit before the authorities concerned. He has withdrawn all retiral benefits. So, the plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware about the proceedings cannot be accepted in any manner. There is no merit in the petition and the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.