CRM No.M-16849 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM No.M-16849 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 01.07.2009 **** Mohd.Kalam . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Haryana . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Partap Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the respondent. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.47 dated 21.4.2009 registered under Sections 379, 420 IPC at Police Station GRP Ambala Cantt., District Ambala. According to the allegations contained in the FIR, the complainant is alleged to have given his ATM card on 19.4.2009 to an unknown person and also told him the code number 0566 and asked him to check his balance in his account. The said person had checked the balance and returned the ATM card to him. It is alleged in the FIR that on 20.4.2009 in order to withdraw Rs.1,000/-, the complainant had gone to ATM Ambala Cantt. and inserted the card in order to withdraw the money, but the machine did not respond because the PIN number was faulty. When he CRM No.M-16849 of 2009 - 2 - enquired about it from the PNB Branch of Sadar Bazar, he was told that the ATM card does not belong to him. When he withdrew Rs.1000/- from his account, the balance amount shown in his account was Rs.23,813/- instead of Rs.73,513/-. On enquiring about the details of his account, it was found that Rs.25,000/- has been withdrawn from the ATM on 20.4.2009 and Rs.25,000/- has been withdrawn from the ATM on 21.4.2009. It is thus alleged that the said unknown person had exchanged the ATM card and withdrew an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant’s account. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the present case because no-one would disclose his code of ATM to an unknown person and would ask him to check his bank balance. He further submits that the petitioner was on anticipatory bail before the Court below and had joined the investigation and as such nothing is required from him as the investigation has already been carried out by the prosecution. Mr.Partap Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana has also submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and is no more required for custodial interrogation. Be that as it may, without commenting on the merits of this case, the present bail application is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Investigating/Arresting Officer. He shall also join investigation as and when required. He shall also abide by all the conditions as envisaged by Section 438(2), Cr.P.C. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JULY 01, 2009 JUDGE vivek