CRM No.M-14596 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-23.9.2010 Daya Nand Mathur son of Fateh Singh Mathu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G. Haryana. Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Daya Nand Mathur son of Fateh Singh Mathu, has directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in this case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the prosecution case is that complainant Sandeep Bansal started insurance and share marketing business with petitioner Daya Nand Mathur, by spending huge amount. They set up one office at Karnal, besides 20 other offices of the company spread in the various towns of Haryana. The business suffered losses and the petitioner became panicky. According to the complainant that on 23.3.2010, he was sitting in his office at Karnal. At about 12 noon, the accused came there and gave him the beatings. They forcibly lifted and compelled him to sit in his Wagon-R Car No.HR-05Z-1335 and took him to their house situated in Char Chaman, Karnal. The accused were also stated to have taken his several cheque books, three mobile sets as well as laptop. They again gave beatings to him in the house and was made to sign several blank papers, cheque books and other stamp papers. The father of the complainant was called at the spot. The accused threatened that in case he did not make the losses good suffered by the petitioner, then he shall be done to death. However, they agreed to release him (complainant) after extracting promise from his relatives in this respect. CRM No.M-14596 of 2010 2 However, the accused illegally retained cheque books, three mobile sets and Wagon-R Car of the complainant. They prepared a bogus cheque of Rs.1,76,00,000/- and forged and fabricated other documents. The forged cheques were also presented for payment. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the complainant that the accused committed the theft of laptop, cheque books and Wagon-R Car of the complainant. They prepared the forged and fabricated documents as well. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.432 dated 27.4.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 363, 380, 382, 386, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC by the police of Police Station City Karnal, Distt.Karnal. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and since no offence is made out against him, so, he is entitled to anticipatory bail in this case, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations against the petitioner that on 23.3.2010 the complainant was sitting in his office at Karnal. At about 12 noon, the accused came there and gave him the beatings. They forcibly lifted and compelled him to sit in his Wagon-R Car No.HR-05Z-1335 and took him to the house of the petitioner situated in Char Chaman, Karnal. The accused were also stated to have taken his several cheque books, three mobile sets as well as laptop. They again gave beatings to him in the house and was made to sign several blank papers, cheque books and other stamp papers. The father of the CRM No.M-14596 of 2010 3 complainant was called at the spot. The accused threatened that in case the complainant did not make the losses good suffered by the petitioner, then he shall be done to death. However, they agreed to release him (complainant) after extracting promise from his relatives in this regard. 8. Meaning thereby, there are very serious and glaring allegations against the petitioner. As he did not join the investigation, despite the order dated 25.5.2010 of this Court to do so, therefore, his custodial interrogation is required to recover the cheque books, three mobile sets, car and other documents. 9. It is now well settled principle of law that anticipatory bail should not be granted lightly and in a routine manner. Ultimately, it may seriously affect the process of investigation. An order of anticipatory bail should not be made to create an in-road to the statutory investigational power of the police. In my view, if the petitioner is allowed anticipatory bail, it is likely to occasion interference in the investigational power of the police, which is not legally permissible. 10. In this manner, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the accusation emanating from the record, as discussed above, to me, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail under these circumstances. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, because the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. 23.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge