In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-22976 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:1.12.2010 Vinod Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Vishal Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 3.4.2010 for the offences under Sections 406 and 506 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Vikas Kamboj who has alleged that he gave a Tata Safari vehicle on 23.12.2009 to the petitioner on the asking of his friend Balraj. The petitioner had taken the vehicle for selling it. When the complainant asked for the vehicle, the petitioner did not return it. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tata Safari vehicle which the complainant Vikas Kamboj has alleged had been stealthily taken by the petitioner was, in fact, sold by the complainant to the petitioner and the entire consideration of `2,25,000/- has been paid. It is submitted that the petitioner made a statement before the learned Judicial Cr. Misc. No.M-22976 of 2010 [2] Magistrate Ist Class on 1.5.2010 in which he stated that he had paid `1 Lac by cash and `1,25,000/- by cheque drawn on ICICI Bank to the complainant. In response, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Jai Parkash, Police Station Sector 55/56, District Gurgaon, has submitted that the Investigating Officer has verified that the petitioner has not paid any amount to the complainant neither is there withdrawal of any amount from his account and neither is a cheque said to have been given by the petitioner credited in the account of the complainant; besides, the amount of `1,25,000/- has not been debited from the account of the petitioner. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. At the time of motion hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the particulars regarding the cheque and its encashment shall be submitted. However, only a photostat copy of the cheque in the name of the complainant has been submitted. The said cheque is dated 25.2.2010 and is for an amount of `1,25,000/- but it is not shown whether said amount has been debited from the account of the petitioner. Besides, it is also not shown as regards the payment of `1 Lac by the petitioner to the complainant. On 27.10.2010, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner shall once again join the investigation and cooperate with the investigation Learned counsel for the State has submitted that though the petitioner has been appearing before the Investigating Officer but he is not cooperating with the investigation and has furnished no particulars regarding the deposit of the cheque amount or the cash, therefore, his Cr. Misc. No.M-22976 of 2010 [3] custodial interrogation is necessary. Keeping in view the fact and circumstances and particularly the fact that the petitioner has not been able to show as to when the amount of `2,25,000/- i.e. `1 Lac in cash and `1,25,000/- by cheque was paid as also the fact that the vehicle is still with the petitioner, it would be just and expedient to dismiss the application for seeking pre-arrest bail. In the circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. December 1, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*