Crl. Misc. No. M-32095 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-32095 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: February 15, 2010 Ramesh Kumar .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. A.S. Sullar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This shall dispose of two petitions namely Crl. Misc. No. M- 32095 of 2009 titled Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Crl. Misc. No. 36783 of 2009 titled Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana. In both the petitions, the petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 191 dated 29.03.2007 under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, and Section 7/13 of the P.C. Act, P.S. Sadar, Fatehabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners, in both the cases, have been custody for more than 6 months. The allegation is in regard to embezzlement during the period 1993-2006. During the said period, number of officials/officers changed and, therefore, it would not be Crl. Misc. No. M-32095 of 2009 2 appropriate at this stage to conclude that the petitioners are solely responsible for the acts. It has also been pleaded that no objection was raised by Audit Department. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from ASI Ashok Kumar, contends that objection in regard to audit would not be a relevant argument in so much as allegation is of forgery also. An auditor is only required to check the balance sheets and file an audit report. The period during which the offence took place, however, is not disputed. It has also been brought out that challan has already been filed and investigation has been concluded. The matter is fixed for framing of charge. I have considered the rival contentions. Considering the fact that the petitioners in the cases have been in custody for more than 6 months; investigation has already been concluded; the period during which offence was committed ranges between 1993 to 2006; the fact that conclusion of trial is likely to take time, both the petitions are allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM Fatehabad. 15.02.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE