CRM-M-24098-2011 [ 1 ] :::::::: IN TH E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24098-2011 Date of decision:20.09.2011 Harjinder Singh Jaura ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. S.S.Majithia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The petitioner has applied for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.67 dated 19.05.2011, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468,471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Division No.2, Jalandhar. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had introduced and paid `500/- for the purpose of opening the saving bank account of Rohit Anand and Pankaj Anand who had applied for a housing loan in order to purchase the property owned by their father Parvesh Chander Anand. The loan was sanctioned to the tune of `15,00,000/- and a sum of `10,00,000/- were advanced for the purchase of property and `5,00,000/- was meant for construction. Vide pay order No.217204 dated 26.02.2010, a sum of `10,00,000/- was credited in the saving account of Parvesh Chander Anand. Out of the said amount, a sum of `1,50,000/- was transferred in the name of the firm of the petitioner. Besides above, another case of housing loan of Indira Devi and Chaman Lal has also been detected by the bank which has been sanctioned in connivance of the petitioner. The petitioner had applied for pre-arrest bail before the CRM-M-24098-2011 [ 2 ] :::::::: learned Court below which was dismissed on 03.08.2011. In this case, notice was issued and interim bail was granted, pursuant to which Shri R.K.Khera, Chief Manager of the Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Chandigarh also appeared alongwith the counsel for the State in order to assist the Court. He brought to the notice of the Court that the new account in the name of Rohit Anand and Pankaj Anand was opened on 26.02.2010 at 17:47:05 hours (05:47:05 pm) after the bank hours and on the same day, loan of `15,00,000/- was sanctioned and `10,00,000/- was transferred in the account of the loanee. All the transactions are of the same day which create suspicion and calls for a thorough probe. Moreover, it has been submitted by the learned State Counsel that another complaint against the petitioner involving a fraud of `17,00,000/- with the bank is also under investigation. Keeping in the view the gravity and seriousness of the offence, this case requires thorough probe by way of custodial interrogation of the petitioner and as such, the discretion of anticipatory bail cannot exercised in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed and resultantly, the interim order dated 19.08.2011 granted by this Court is hereby vacated. September 20, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge