IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3710 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:February 08, 2010 Vivek Mittal ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amit Kohar,Advocate for the petitioners. ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.494 dated 12.12.2009 under Sections 406/420/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. The prosecution story in brief as per FIR is that the complainant was working with his nephew and was running the business of petroleum products. Sanjay Mittal was earlier known to the complainant and was also doing the business in petroleum products in the name and style of M/s Golen Lubes Pvt.Ltd.at Bahadurgarh. Sanjay Mittal met the complainant on 20.11.2008 and raised a demand of Rs.65,00,000/- from the complainant on the plea that he was in great financial crisis. Complainant agreed to pay Crl. Misc. No. M-3710 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Rs.35,00,000/- in cash to Sanjay Mittal for the said purpose and also agreed to get the delivery of lubricant oil from Ludhiana from Inland Container Depot after 10 months. Sanjay Mittal mortgaged his residential flat situated at New Delhi as a security for repayment of loan. On 23.11.2008, Rs.30,00,000/- were handed over by the complainant and his nephew Rajiv Garg to Sanjay Mittal in the presence of his brother and the documents of the flat were handed over to the complainant on 24.11.2008. Despite requests, the amount of Rs.65,00,000/- was not returned to the complainant by the accused. On 26.11.2009, when the complainant and his nephew went to the factory of Sanjay Mittal, the complainant and his nephew were manhandled by Sanjay Mittal, Parvesh Singhal and Vivek Mittal (petitioner). Complainant also found out that, in fact, Sanjay Mittal was not the owner of the flat. Oil products worth Rs.35,00,000/- had been delivered to Vivek Mittal, petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been falsely involved in this case. Petitioner had never met the complainant. Co-accused Parvesh Singhal has been allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge. After hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Brother of the petitioner had executed documents in favour of the complainant regarding flat although he was not owner of the said flat. Rs.35,00,000/- had been given to Sanjay Mittal in the presence of the petitioner. Oil products worth Rs.35,00,000/- had been delivered to the petitioner proprietor M/s B.B. Industries Focal Point, Dandhari Kalan in the Crl. Misc. No. M-3710 of 2010 (O&M) -3- month of October,2009. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in connivance with his brother, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Petitioner might be required for custodial interrogation. Dismissed. (Sabina) Judge February 08, 2010 arya