IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No. M- 22754 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 30, 2010. Parmodh Kumar Bhalla ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT(s) 2. Crl. Misc. No. M- 24892 of 2010(O&M) Ravinder Pal Singh ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. K.S.Nalwa, Advocate for Mr. H.S.Dhindsa, Advocate Mr. S.S.Behl, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.A.G., Punjab. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Both the aforementioned petitions have been filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.319 dated CRM No.M-22754 of 2010 19.12.2009, under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner- Ravinder Pal Singh that petitioner is proprietor of M/s Kirat Enterprises and that however, main accused in this case is Surender Kumar, who is proprietor of M/s Jai Iron Store, who has allegedly cheated the Department and has shown the bogus sale/purchase having been made to M/s Kirat Enterprises and some other concerns. Further contends that he has never shown the alleged transaction in his return. Further contends that Surender Kumar has already been released on regular bail in Crl.M.No.M-9577 of 2010 and that co-accused Paramjit Singh has also been granted bail by this Court in Crl. Misc. No.M-845 of 2010. Further contends that he has been continuing in custody since 28.05.2010 and that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner-Parmodh Kumar Bhalla that he is not proprietor of any firm mentioned in the FIR. Further contends that only allegation against him is that co-accused, Paramjit Singh and Lalit Kumar had sold their firm to him subsequently. Hence, it is contended that petitioner was having no concern with the said firm when the alleged offence had taken place. Further contends that co-accused Paramjit Singh and Lalit Kumar have already been released on regular bail by this Court in Crl. Misc. No.M-845 of 2010. Further contends that he has been continuing in custody since 03.04.2010 and that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. 2 CRM No.M-22754 of 2010 Learned counsel for the State does not dispute these facts. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, both the applications for regular bail filed on behalf of Parmodh Kumar Bhalla and Ravinder Pal Singh are allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 30, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 3