IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-7110 of 2010 Date of Decision: May 04, 2010 Rohit Kaushik .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, assisted by Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate, for the complainant. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.779 dated 26.11.2009 under Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC, registered with Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal. On 29.3.2010, the following order was passed:- Crl. Misc. No. M-7110 of 2010 [2] “This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for bail in case FIR No.779 dated 26.11.2009 under Sections 409/420/120-B IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, Karnal, District Karnal. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that perusal of FIR itself would indicate that the complainant has made specific allegations against Vijay Chaudhary PFE. At the most, lack of supervisory control has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from ASI Raj Singh, has also endorsed the fact that main allegations are against Vijay Chaudhary who has said to have siphoned off the money. I have considered the issue. Gist of the allegation is that the petitioner and Vijay Chaudhary took the money from the complainant for investing. Even the complainant visited the office of the petitioner (Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., Distribution Division, Nehru Place, Karnal) to make payment in cash. A sum of Rs.11,56,211/- was given by the complainant. The said amount allegedly has been passed to Vijay Chaudhary PFE co-accused/non-petitioner for investment on behalf of the complainant. In the FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner could not keep a check on Vijay Chaudhary due to his busy schedule in office work. Vijay Chaudhary deceived petitioner of Rs.3,95,000/- by not investing in the companies as per directions of the complainant and thereby caused a loss to the extent of that amount by misappropriating the money. Considering the nature of controversy, the petitioner is directed to join investigation on 5th and 6th of April, 2010 at 10.00 a.m. on each of the dates and is directed to give complete co-operation to the Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall not be taken in custody and shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. Adjourned to 04.05.2010.” In deference to the order, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has joined investigation. Learned counsel for the respondent- State, on instructions from Raj Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, states that hand-writing/ Crl. Misc. No. M-7110 of 2010 [3] signature sample of the petitioner might be required at a later stage of investigation Learned counsel for the petitioner has assured the Court that the petitioner shall continue to give complete assistance to the investigating agency and shall make himself available for giving the hand-writing/ signature sample. Considering the above, the petition is allowed. Order dated 29.3.2010 is hereby made absolute and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:- “(i) The petitioner shall make himself available for in- terrogation as and when required; (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person ac- quainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) The petitioner shall not leave India without the pre- vious permission of the Court.” This order shall enure till 15 days after the filing of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. within which period, the petitioner shall be re- quired to seek regular bail. Crl. Misc. No. M-7110 of 2010 [4] (AJAI LAMBA) May 04, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?