Crl. Misc. No.M-5703 of 2011 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-5703 of 2011 Date of decision: 01.03.2011 Ajay Kumar Sharma .. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .. Respondent Present:- Mr.G.S. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Gurvinder Singh Sandhu, AA.G., Haryana. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 29.09.2010 for the offences under Sections 380, 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Udyog Vihar, District Gurgaon. The FIR, in the case, has been registered on the complaint of Maninder Singh, who has alleged that the petitioner has an account in the name of Shivam Hand Works in the same bank i.e. Punjab National Bank Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, in which the complainant also has an account. He has misused the account of the complainant by forging his signatures on a cheque stolen from the unused cheques lying in his office and transferred an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- from the account of the complainant directly into his (petitioner's) account. In the course of investigation, it was brought out that petitioner was residing at the Kapashehra and had an account in the name of Shivam Hand Works in the Punjab National Bank, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. He had forged a cheque which he had stolen from the office of the complainant and transferred the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- in his account. Later, he withdrew the amount i.e. Crl. Misc. No.M-5703 of 2011 ::2:: Rs.6,20,000/- by cheque and Rs.32,000/- by A.T.M. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had an intimate friend by the name of Sunil Kumar. The said Sunil Kumar is working in ICICI General Insurance Company. He used to visit the office of the petitioner namely Shivam Handloom frequently for insurance purposes. Apart from this, the petitioner has no knowledge about the said Sunil Kumar. On 08.12.2009, Sunil Kumar came to the petitioner and asked whether he had any existing bank account. The petitioner stated that he has a bank account. Sunil Kumar introduced a lady by the name of Anita and stated that she was his sister. A cheque of Rs.6,50,000/- was to be encashed and because Sunil Kumar had no local bank account in his name, he requested the petitioner to get the same encashed from his bank account. The petitioner, it is stated, encashed the cheque in his bank account and gave an amount of Rs.6,20,000/- to Sunil Kumar and balance amount of Rs.30,000/- was withdrawn in three parts through his ATM Card. The photographs of said Sunil Kumar and Anita while withdrawing the amount from the account and handing it over to them are recorded in the Close Circuit Cameras of the Bank which can be verified at any time. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required as he has played a fraud and withdrew an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- from the account of the complainant by forging the cheque stolen from the office of the complainant. It is submitted that the names of other persons from the Bank who are involved in this case have also to be ascertained. The stand that has been taken by the petitioner, it is submitted, is not tenable and the matter requires thorough investigation; besides, arrest warrants of the petitioner have been issued for 5.03.2011. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it Crl. Misc. No.M-5703 of 2011 ::3:: may be noticed that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of his having stolen a cheque and withdrawn an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- from the bank account of the complainant by forging the cheque which he later deposited in his account. He withdrew an amount of Rs.6,20,000/- by cheque and a sum of Rs.30,000/- by his ATM Card. The defence set up by the petitioner regarding his intimacy with one Sunil Kumar who asked the petitioner to encash a cheque from the account of the petitioner, is not to be considered and gone into at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted during the course of hearing that he would produce Sunil Kumar and get the amount recovered. This, however, is a matter of investigation. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and the manner in which the amount had been withdrawn by forging a cheque and depositing it in his own account as also the stand of the petitioner that he has only a casual acquaintance with Sunil Kumar, it would be inexpedient to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail. In case of pre-arrest bail, the advantage of custodial interrogation for eliciting more information and useful material is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extraordinary in nature. The criminal miscellaneous petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, in case, the petitioner surrenders before the police within three days of the receipt of copy of this order and files an application for regular bail, the same shall be considered within three days of its filing after excluding the period of police remand, if any. (S.S. SARON) March 01, 2011 JUDGE sukhpreet