IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1007 of 2011 Date of decision : 09.12.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Rahul Chauhan S/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar, R/o Village Bhadwara P.O. & Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 349 of 2011 dated 25.9.2011 registered at Police Station, Nurpur, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 379 IPC. 2. It has been stated in the application that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The bail application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala on 1.12.2011. The petitioner is innocent. He is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. Prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 3. The status report has been filed and the bail application has been opposed. It has been stated that case has been registered on the basis of complaint of Bank Manager Arjun Chand, Canera Bank, Nurpur. It has been stated that on 24.9.2011 Rahul Mahajan presented a self bearer cheque No. 335036 dated 20.9.2011 S.B. A/c No. 1961101022426 of Rajesh Kaushik, Subroto Park Delhi for ` 49,000/- and taken payment and signed on the back of cheque as Pankaj. E-mail has been received from Subroto Park Branch, Delhi that no such cheque has been issued by the account holder Rajesh Kaushik. Rahul Chauhan has wrongly drawn the cheque as Pankaj. Prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General and have also perused the police file. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that account holder is Rajesh Kaushik. The cheque has been allegedly issued by Rajesh Kaushik but as per investigating agency the signatures on the cheque in question of Rajesh Kaushik are forged. The petitioner has signed the cheque as Pankaj representing himself as Pankaj though he is Rahul Chauhan. As per account holder, the cheque has not been issued by him in favour of Rahul Chauhan. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now investigation in the case is complete and no purpose will be served by arresting the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that in order to bring out the truth many loose ends are to be tied. It is to be investigated how the petitioner came in possession of the cheque in question and when the cheque is self bearer why he 3 signed the cheque representing him as Pankaj. It has been submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The case of the investigating agency is that cheque in question does not bear the signatures of Rajesh Kaushik. The petitioner has signed the cheque by representing him as Pankaj though he is Rahul Chauhan. He has encashed a sum of ` 49,000/-. Therefore, there is force in the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Hence the petition is dismissed. 6. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. December 9, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.