JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - Shamsher Singh accused has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 374 dated 8.10.2012, under sections 420,467,468,471, 384, 120-B IPC, Police Station Camp Palwal, District Palwal. 2. According to prosecution version, vehicle of the petitioner met with an accident on 10.4.2012 at about 6.30 AM. Insurance of the vehicle had admittedly expired on 4.4.2012. The petitioner, after the accident, allegedly in connivance with officials of insurance company got the vehicle insured with effect from 9.4.2012 by ante dating the documents. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner could not have tampered with all the documents of the insurance company. It was also argued that photostat copy of the impugned insurance cover note was recovered from the vehicle at the spot itself after the accident. 5. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Dharambir, stated that the insurance papers were prepared in back date by insurance company officials in connivance with the petitioner who is the beneficiary thereof. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. At this stage, it cannot be said that it was a mere co-incidence that the petitioner got the vehicle insured on 9.4.2012 and the vehicle met with accident on the very next day early morning, although the insurance had expired on 4.4.2012 i.e. 6 days before the accident. The petitioner is beneficiary of the ante dated insurance cover and therefore, the ante dated documents of insurance could be prepared only in connivance with and at the instance of the petitioner. It is also worth mentioning that no time has been mentioned in the insurance cover note dated 9.4.2012 although invariably time is mentioned in the insurance cover note. On the other hand, proposal for insurance was submitted on 9.4.2012, checking report of the vehicle was also submitted on the same day and the insurance cover note was also issued on the same day. 7. Keeping in view all the circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on merits, it is not a fit case for extending extra ordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------