Crl. Misc. No. M-31177 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-31177 of 2009 Date of Decision : January 11, 2010 Parmod Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narinder Singh, DAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Parmod Kumar has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 72 dated 23.04.2009, under Sections 420, 471, 467, 468, 381, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station DLF Phase-I, District Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, petitioner was employee of the complainant-company. The company used to issue cheques, in which blanks were filled with computer prints, but it was found on verification from bank account statements that several hand-written cheques had been encashed for total amount of Rs.4,97,200/-. In addition thereto, a sum of Crl. Misc. No. M-31177 of 2009 2 Rs.18,05,000/- had also been withdrawn by cheques issued in favour of `Self'. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that after dismissal of previous bail petition filed by the petitioner, report of handwriting expert has been received to the effect that handwriting in the alleged forged cheques is not of the petitioner. Learned State counsel, after seeking instructions from SI Raj Pal, admits this factual position. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner's co- accused Amit and Kirti Parkash @ Sanjay Parkash have already been granted bail. It is contended that it was Kirti Parkash, who had opened the bank account and encashed the forged cheques. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that it was the petitioner, who misusing his position as employee of the complainant company, had committed theft of the cheques, which were forged by petitioner's co-accused to withdraw the amount in question. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The petitioner is in custody since 22.05.2009. The case is triable by Magistrate. Petitioner's co-accused have already been granted bail. Trial is likely to take long time. In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to comment anything on merits, the instant bail petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Gurgaon. At least one surety shall be from District Gurgaon because the petitioner belongs to Delhi. Some other suitable conditions may also be imposed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon to ensure the presence of the petitioner after release on bail. January 11, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE