Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-4835 of 2014 Date of decision:12.02.2014 Gurcharan Kaur ..Petitioner versus State of Punjab & another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr.Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioner....TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.310 dated 10.12.2013 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Rajpura City, District Patiala.
Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length and the case paper book has been perused.
The FIR in question is placed on record at Annexure P-1.
A perusal of the same would reveal that the allegations pertain to frauding the government and drawing pension in respect of one Ram Kaur who had actually died way back in the year 1991.
It has been alleged that the present petitioner has impersonated Ram Kaur and has been drawing pension in connivance with certain government officials.
Counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per allegations contained in the FIR, the age of the petitioner has been described to be about 35 years whereas her age is actually 64 yeaRs.Towards such assertion, counsel would advert to a copy of the passport of the petitioner appended as Kaur Harjeet 2014.02.12 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-4835 of 2014 -2- Annexure P-2.
The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Patiala in the order dated 28.01.2014 at Annexure P-4 while declining the concession of anticipatory bail has clearly noticed that upon perusal of the police file, it has become apparent that the petitioner has made an admission as regards her photographs being on the pension papers of deceased Ram Kaur.
On a specific query having been put to the counsel for the petitioner, such position has gone un-rebutted and counsel for the petitioner would very fairly state that the concerned bank manager has also stated in the same breath.
Accordingly, I am of the view that the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Patiala has rightfully denied the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
No case for interference is made out.
Petition dismissed.
February 12, 2014 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE Kaur Harjeet 2014.02.12 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document