Crl.M.No.M-27756 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-27756 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 8, 2010 Sudhir Sood .....Petitioner v. The State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr.D.N.Ganeriwala, Advocate for the complainant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.141, dated 21.9.2009, under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner alongwith one Ram Nath had formed a company, M/s.A.S.Rice Mills Private Limited, Village Jhampur, and both the Directors had the share capital of Rs.10,00,000/-, i.e., Rs.5,00,000/- each and the land on which rice sheller was to be constructed was in the name of Ram Nath and the present petitioner-Sudhir Sood. Later on Jagdish Singh was also appointed Director and, thereafter Manpreet Singh was also appointed Director. Allegations against the present petitioner-accused are that he while acting as Director of the Company forged resignations of Jagdish Crl.M.No.M-27756 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Singh, Manpreet Singh and Ram Nath and sent the same to Registrar of Companies. Resignations of Jagdish Singh, Manpreet Singh are dated 11.5.2009, whereas resignation of Ram Nath is dated 15.5.2009, and the same were sent to Registrar of Companies later on, i.e., 7.8.2009 and 8.8.2009 respectively. Further allegations are that the present petitioner- accused Sudhir Sood had already resigned from the Directorship of the Company on 25.3.2009 and resolution to this effect was already passed by the Directors of the Company. However, the same was not forwarded to Registrar of Companies at that time. The complainant and other Directors did not know that their resignations were forged and sent to Registrar of Companies by the present petitioner and hence, complainant also deposited Rs.7,70,000/- in the bank against the loan of the Company from 27.7.2009 to 10.8.2009. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that he had filed criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant and that he has also filed a civil suit and that complainant and Jagdish Singh failed to make the payment of the share of the accused and that his signatures were also obtained on blank paper and that no resignation has been forged by the petitioner-accused. It has also been contended that Jagdish Singh @Bhola is a retired police Inspector and he is involved in many criminal cases and that he was also arrested by Mumbai police in a Narcotic case. It is also contended that money which was allegedly deposited in the account of the company by the complainant was also supplied by Jagdish. Further contended that he is not in possession of any record of the company as the same is in possession of the complainant and other Directors and that he has already supplied copy of form 32 and copies of resignation letters to the police. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel on the plea that only photocopies of resignation letters have been supplied and that originals are still in possession of the petitioner-accused as the same are also not available in the record of the company as well in the record of Registrar of Companies and that without the original resignation letters, copy of which sent to office of Registrar of Companies, Crl.M.No.M-27756 of 2009 (O&M) -3- investigation cannot be completed, as there are allegations of forgery qua these resignation letters. It is further contended that there are allegations of fraud of about Rs.70 lacs against the applicant-accused as lateron applicant-accused has also transferred shares of complainant in his name and four other persons, vide Annexure R13 and that other persons had given affidavits that they had not received any such share. I have considered all the facts of the case. There are serious allegations against the petitioner-accused. Hence, his custodial interrogation is necessary. It is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Though he was granted interim bail, he has not produced original resignation letters of the Directors. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, order dated 10.11.2009, granting interim bail to petitioner-Sudhir Sood is recalled and the present petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 8.4.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge