IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-378 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 06, 2011 Sunil Tanwar and others. …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana. … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ram Niwas Kush, Advocate, for the petitioners. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioners have moved present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 977 dated 16.11.2010, under Sections 419 / 420 / 406 / 467 / 468 / 470 / 471 / 474 / 506 / 307 / 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City, Hisar, District Hisar. Initially, complaint was filed by the complainant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was directed to be investigated by the police. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioners have floated a company in the name and style of AETNA Healthcare and is using logo of AETNA Healthcare, AETNA ING.151 Farmington Avenu, Hort Ford CT 06156 USA. Crl.Misc.No.M-378 of 2011 The petitioners persuaded the complainant to invest the money with the petitioners and that is why complainant has invested Rs. 9 lacs. Later on, the complainant came to know that company being run by the petitioners is forged one and has no affiliation in the U.S.A. and that is why the petitioners are playing fraud with the complainant. Cheques issued by the petitioners were also dishonoured and thereafter, news item was published against the petitioners in the newspapers and petitioners with intend to kill the complainant in a motor vehicular accident on 08.01.2010 tried to run over the motor car on the complainant, wherein the complainant has suffered grievous injuries. From the material available on the record, prima facie, it seems that the petitioners are involved in running the forged company with intend to induce the citizens and prima facie, it is also proved that the petitioners with intend to kill the complainant with the motor accident tried to run over the motor vehicle on the complainant. In the opinion of this Court, in the present case, thorough probe/investigation requires for which custodial interrogation seems to be essential, hence, no case is made out for anticipatory bail. Dismissed. January 06, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-378 of 2011 3