CRM-M 10746 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M 10746 of 2009 Decided on 04.11.2009. Rajinder Jaidka -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and another --Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.APS Deol, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Davinder Bir Singh,Advocate,for the petitioner (Rajinder Jaidka) and Mr.Vikas Bahl,Advocate,for the petitioner(Surinder Pal) Mr.R.S.Rawat,AAG,Punjab. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: This order shall dispose of two anticipatory bail petitions bearing CRM-M 10746 of 2009 (Rajindner Jaidka Vs. State of Punjab) and CRM-M 12194 of 2009 (Surinder Pal Vs. State of Punjab), arising out of FIR No.91 dated 07.7.2008 registered under Sections 420, 465, 468,471,474 & 120-B IPC, at Police Station, City Nawan Shahr, District Nawan Shahr. It is pertinent to mention here that before coming to this Court, the petitioner Rajinder Jaidka had filed anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C), before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Nawan Shahr, which was dismissed vide his order dated 16.4.2009, whereas petitioner Surinder Pal had filed anticipatory bail petition under CRM-M 10746 of 2009 2 Section 438 of Cr.P.C) before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Nawan Shahr, which was dismissed vide his order dated 22.4.2009 Notice of motion was issued in CRM-M 10746 of 2009 on 22.4.2009 and interim bail was granted to petitioner Rajinder Jaidka, subject to his joining the investigation as and when called, whereas notice of motion was issued in CRM-M 12194 of 2009 on 06.5.2009 in which while granting interim bail, it was ordered to be listed with CRM-M 10746 of 2009, therefore, both these bail applications are being disposed of by this common order. FIR No.91 dated 07.7.2008 has been registered on the complaint of Balwant Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh, in which she has stated that she is maintaining joint account No.709 with her husband Jasbir Singh in Canara Bank, Banga Road, Nawanshahr. While they were away to Canada, some one in connivance with the bank staff, after giving a new cheque book issued had withdrawn the entire amount of Rs.9,63,000/- from their joint account by forging their signatures. The facts are not in dispute that Balwant Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh and her husband Jasbir Singh were maintaining joint S.B.Account No.709 in Canara Bank since 24.9.2004 for operation “ either or survivor”. On 10.3.2008, a cheque bearing No 152094 for Rs.93,000/- was presented at Counter for payment. Subsequently, on 12.3.2008, Cheque bearing No. 152093 for Rs.1,40,000/-; on 15.3.2008; Cheque bearing No. 152092 for Rs.2,00,000/-; on 15.3.2008, Cheque bearing No. 152096 for Rs.2,00,000/-; on CRM-M 10746 of 2009 3 24.3.2008, Cheque bearing No. 152095 for Rs.1,10,000/-; on 26.3.2008, Cheque bearing No. 152100 for Rs.2,00,000/-; all, the cheques in favour of Sri Bhinder Singh and last one Cheque No.152098 for Rs.20,000/- in favour of Bhinder Singh were presented and encashed”. Both the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present cases. It is also submitted that they have joined the investigation and since the entire record is with the bank, therefore, their custodial interrogation is not required. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the present case is only a tip of an ice-berg of a big scam operating in the Canara Bank as it is evident from the record that in CRM-M 12194 of 2009, the petitioner (Surinder Pal) himself has placed on record a copy of FIR No. 27 dated 20.2.2009 registered under Sections 406,420, 467,468, 471 IPC, at Police Station, City Nawanshahr, on the complaint of one Rawel Dhillon to the effect that he is maintaining NRI SB Account No. 11717 in the same branch from which a sum of Rs. 6,30,000/- has been fraudulently withdrawn by forging his signatures with the connivance of the bank staff. He has further submitted that the petitioner Rajinder Jaidka is specifically named and the role of the petitioner (Surinder Pal) in the entire case of forgery and cheating is writ large. I have perused the record and have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of these cases and have found that prima facie, the bank staff including the petitioners have CRM-M 10746 of 2009 4 played an active role in the act of forgery and cheating with an NRI account holder. Therefore, I do not find any exceptional circumstance for grant of anticipatory bail to both the petitioners. Thus, both the petitions are hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 04.11.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge