Crl. Misc No. M-4644 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-4644 of 2009 Date of decision : 10.12.2009 Hari Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. JBS Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. Mr. H.S. Hundal, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case registered vide FIR No. 268 dated 08.10.2008 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC at Police Station Division No. 5 Civil Lines, Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that entire loan amount was repaid by the petitioner as is evident from receipt, Annexure P-2 issued by the Bank. According to the counsel, the dispute is only regarding the repayment of loan and, thus, the petitioner deserves to be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the State has, however, submitted that loan was obtained by the petitioner by submitting a forged registration certificate Crl. Misc No. M-4644 of 2009 2 of truck bearing No. HR-58A/5555. According to the counsel, amount of more than Rs. 2.00 lacs is yet to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit on behalf of the Bank wherein it has been submitted that forged documents were submitted by the petitioner for the purpose of obtaining loan from the bank. According to the counsel, amount of more than Rs. 2.00 lacs is still due towards the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that allegations against the petitioner are that he submitted certain forged documents for the purpose of obtaining a loan from the bank. The affidavit of Sumit Arora, Deputy Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. has already been filed. According to the said affidavit an amount of Rs. 2,74,415.15p is still due from the petitioner and he has not deposited a single penny after 31.03.2008. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that petitioner is alleged to have forged documents for the purpose of obtaining loan, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 10.12.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE