Criminal Misc. No. M-3841 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-3841 of 2011 Date of decision : 14.02.2011 Ajay Kumar ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Rao Devinder Singh Nirban, Advocate for the complainant. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 108 dated 21.12.2010 under Sections 420/406/467/468/506/120-B IPC at Police Station Satnali, District Mohindergarh, Haryana. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that entire case is based on documentary evidence and thus custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the plea. He submits that petitioner had misappropriated huge amount and Criminal Misc. No. M-3841 of 2011 2 defrauded the complainant. His custodial interrogation is thus necessary. He has further submitted that two vehicles of the complainant were sold by the petitioner by changing their chassis numbers etc. Recovery of one of the vehicles is yet to be effected from him. He further submits that petitioner refused to join investigation despite repeated opportunities granted by the court below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The case was registered on the complaint of Surender who alleged that he joined as a partner in the firm of the accused/petitioner after contributing an amount of `27,50,000/-. He also made available his two vehicles bearing nos. HR-55B-6015 and HR-55A-0744. The two vehicles were, however, sold by the accused without seeking his consent. One of the vehicle was recovered and the other one is still missing. Allegedly, certain documents purportedly signed by the complaint were also used for the purpose of selling the vehicles. In view of seriousness of allegations, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. February 14, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE