Crl.M.No.25300-M of 2010(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.25300-M of 2010(O&M) Date of Order: 13.10.2010 Akhtar Hussain .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl.A.G, Haryana. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Prayer under Section 438 Cr.P.C is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.210 dated 22.12.2000 under Sections 420/467/468 IPC, P.S Ferozepur Jhirka, District Gurgaon on behalf of the petitioner, who was working as Land Valuation Officer/Loan Verification Officer in the Primary Development Bank, which was to tender a loan of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant. It is stated that a sum of Rs.36,000/- was released to the impersonator of the complainant at the instance of one Sama @ Samay Mohd. Haroon and Ali Mohd in the presence of the petitioner-Akhtar Hussain. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely roped and he has not been even named in the FIR. It is submitted that though the non-execution of the documents in the presence of the petitioner Crl.M.No.25300-M of 2010(O&M) #2# may be one of the irregularities but it would not amount to commission of any offence by the petitioner. Reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Yoginder Singh Nehra, IPS, S.P, Mewat-Nuh has been filed on behalf of respondent-State stating that the petitioner in connivance of his co-accused committed the fraud and cheated the borrower and that it was his duty to take receipt from the borrowers as well as authority letter in his presence. It has been further indicated that the signatures/thumb impressions of the loanee and receiver taken in presence of the petitioner were found to be false and fictitious. Petitioner appears to have verified the the impersonator (Sama @ Samay Mohd) to be complainant-Dawood. Learned state counsel further submits that the petitioner has not joined investigation so far and his custodial interrogation is required to unravel his role in the offence. Keeping in view the role attributed to the petitioner and gravity of the offence, I find that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. His custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation. Dismissed. October 13, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE