CRM-M-16439-2011 (O&M) - 1 - CRM-M-12874-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-18725-2011 (O&M) :::::::: IN TH E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM-M-12874-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:29.08.2011. Prithipal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State U.T. Chandigarh. ...Respondent (2) CRM-M-18725-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:29.08.2011. Kiran Anand and another ...Petitioners Versus State U.T. Chandigarh. ...Respondent (3) CRM-M-16439-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:29.08.2011. S. Elumalai ...Petitioner Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh. ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: In CRM-M-12874-2011 & CRM-M-18725-2011 Mr. R.S.Bains, Advocate, and Ms. Naveen Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. A.D.S.Sukhija, Advocate, for the complainant. In CRM-M-16439-2011 None for the petitioner. Mr. D.D.Sharma, Advocate, for U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. A.D.S.Sukhija, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** CRM-M-16439-2011 (O&M) - 2 - CRM-M-12874-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-18725-2011 (O&M) :::::::: Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This order shall dispose of three petitions bearing CRM-M-12874-2011 titled as `Prithipal Singh Vs. State U.T. Chandigarh', CRM-M-18725-2011 titled as `Kiran Anand Vs. State U.T. Chandigarh', in which the petitioner(s) have prayed for regular bail, and CRM-M-16439-2011 titled as `S. Elumalai Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh' in which the petitioner has applied for pre-arrest bail but was not on interim bail. All the three petitions are being disposed of together because they have arisen from FIR No.68 dated 28.03.2011, registered under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Industrial Area, Chandigarh. The FIR is registered at the instance of Suman Jolly, Managing Director of the M/s Recarders and Medicare Systems Private Limited, Chandigarh [for short “the company”] which is engaged in the manufacturing of the various types of medical equipments. Basically, the FIR was registered against S. Elumalai (petitioner in CRM-M-16439-2011) who had joined as Sales & Service Engineer on 03.02.2011 and was working as the Regional Head of the company in the Chennai region alongwith one Sham Sunder. It was alleged that S. Elumalai was involved in many cases of fraud and criminal breach of trust about which the instances were quoted in the FIR in detail and in the end, prayer was made that action be taken against S. Elumalai for causing constant loss of money and reputation of the company. Prithipal Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-12874-2011) joined the company on 01.06.1997 as Service Engineer. His last drawn salary was `35,000/- per month plus provident fund and other incentives which was not paid to him from the month of March, 2008. He had been demanding his salary which is claimed to be `10,67,924/- plus other incentives and provident fund. It was alleged that he has a family to support and also a minor mentally retarded daughter to look after and in the absence of salary not having been paid by the company, he is facing very hard days. A complaint was also made against the company for withholding his salary. On filing a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the company from interfering in his peaceful life, as a counter-blast, the petitioner has been involved in the present case though he has not been named in the FIR. It is further submitted here that the challan has been CRM-M-16439-2011 (O&M) - 3 - CRM-M-12874-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-18725-2011 (O&M) :::::::: presented and he is in custody since 28.03.2011. Kiran Anand (petitioner no.1 in CRM-M-18725-2011) was working as an Assistant Engineer in the company and Dinesh Kapoor (petitioner no.2 in CRM-M-18725-2011) was working as Sales Executive who had joined the company in the year 2000. The company stopped paying their salaries from March, 2008 although the last drawn salary of petitioner no.1 Kiran Anand was `21,000/- per month and that of petitioner no.2 Dinesh Kapoor was `24,000/- per month besides provident fund and other incentives. The petitioners had also made an application to the police complaining the stoppage of their salary and despite the fact that they were not named in the FIR, they have been taken into custody. S. Elumalai (petitioner in CRM-M-16439-2011) applied for pre-arrest bail in which he had alleged that he joined the company as a Service Engineer initially @ `5,000/- per month but due to his hard work, it was enhanced upto `42,000/- per month in the course of time. His salary remained unpaid for two years despite the fact that he has been regularly working in the company. He has also alleged that he has been falsely implicated in this case without there being any basis. In reply, learned State Counsel, with the assistance of learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that after the registration of the case it has been found during investigation that S. Elumalai was defrauding the company in the manner which is indicated in the FIR and in this regard, lot of prima facie evidence has been collected, but in the absence of his custody, the investigation against him cannot be completed. Insofar as the other petitioners are concerned who are asking for regular bail, he has admitted that Prithipal Singh was arrested on 28.03.2011 and Kiran Anand and Dinesh Kapoor were arrested on 18.05.2011, whereas investigation against them are over as the challan has been presented. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the complainant had also filed an affidavit of Arun Khanduja, Manager (Admn) of the company dated 29.08.2011 in which it was admitted that a sum of `5,73,084/- is due towards Prithipal Singh, `3,71,325/- towards Kiran Anand, `3,26,469/- towards Dinesh Kapoor, `4,99,406/- towards Sukhwinder Singh Saini (non-applicant) and `6,97,186/- towards S. Elumalai, but it is submitted that the payment has not been made CRM-M-16439-2011 (O&M) - 4 - CRM-M-12874-2011 (O&M) CRM-M-18725-2011 (O&M) :::::::: because of the reason that the case is pending against them of having caused monetary loss to the company by playing fraud. Learned State Counsel has also argued that the custody of S. Elumalai is required for the purpose of thorough investigation of this case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of S. Elumalai is required and hence, his pre-arrest bail application (CRM-M-16439-2011) is hereby dismissed. Prithipal Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-12874-2011), Kiran Anand and Dinesh Kapoor (petitioners in CRM-M-18725-2011) deserves concession of bail as the challan has already been presented against them. Hence, CRM-M-12874-2011 and CRM-M-18725-2011 are hereby allowed and the petitioners therein are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing heavy surety to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. August 29, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge