IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M- 2963 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.9.2010 Karam Singh ......Petitioner Vs State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.John Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr.DAG, Haryana. **** ORDER This petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner Karan Singh for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 460 dated 8.7.2009 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471,120-B IPC registered at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat. Notice of motion was issued on 3.2.2010. Interim order in the same terms as in Crl.Misc.No.M-8861 of 2010 was issued on 9.4.2010. The case was adjourned on various dates and the petitioner was directed to join the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case and he has not been named in the FIR. The petitioner has not availed any benefit of loan for purchase of tractor and neither any tractor was purchased by him nor sold further without repayment of the loan. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was only a surety and not a beneficiary. Crl.Misc. No. M- 2963 of 2010 [2] learned Sr.DAG, Haryana opposes the bail on the ground that it is not a simple case of repayment of loan amount availed by the petitioner. The petitioner was a surety of other accused who are also similarly situated and none of them has repaid the loan amount. The petitioner has joined investigation but has not co-operated, no recovery of loan amount has been effected and the petitioner is not disclosing the involvement of other persons involved in the scam as so many tractors have been purchased and now tractors are not in possession of the persons who had purchased the tractors and have further been sold in adjoining States and even single instalment of loan has not been repaid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor man and he is not in a position to re-pay the loan amount. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR as well as other documents available on the file. Although the petitioner has joined the investigation but has not co-operated in the investigation. The tractor as well as the loan amount are yet to be recovered from him. He is not co- operating the investigating agency by disclosing correct facts and other details with regard to misappropriation of the tractor and he is also not ready to make repayment of the loan amount. In view of the conduct and the fact that he has not co- operated in the investigation and it is a case where custodial interrogation is required to know the truth of selling tractors which Crl.Misc. No. M- 2963 of 2010 [3] were purchased at the instance of some middle man and were sold further to some other persons in the adjoining States. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations against the present petitioner and his conduct being not co-operative in the investigation, he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. However,Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to surrender before the trial Court and move an application for regular bail and directions may be issued for decision of his bail application within some specified period . In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel, the petitioner is at liberty to move an application for grant of regular bail and in case the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court and moves an application for grant of regular bail, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law within a period of four days from the date of filing of the application. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE September 23, 2010. raghav