IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-5883 of 2009 & Criminal Misc. No. M-6829 of 2009 Date of decision : July 07, 2009 Vijay Pal ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) By this common order, I am disposing of two bail petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. No. M-5883 of 2009 filed by Vijay Pal and Criminal Misc. No. M-6829 of 2009 filed by Neetu Yadav, both in case FIR No. 93 dated 8.8.2008 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 511 IPC, Police Station DLF Phase I, Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, complainant Mithlesh and her husband N.P. Sinha owned 56 kanals 4 marlas of land in village Maidawas,District Gurgaon. On 23.7.2008, complainant Mithlesh received telephonic call that they had entered into some agreement to sell their said land to DLF Land Limited and they have received Rs one crore each i.e. the Criminal Misc. No. M-5883 of 2009 & Criminal Misc. No. M-6829 of 2009 -2- complainant and her husband. However, the complainant was surprised to know about it because they had not agreed to sell this land. Subsequent inquiry revealed that bogus accounts were opened in her name and in the name of her husband and cheques for Rs one crore each were deposited in those accounts and the amounts thereafter were withdrawn. A sum of Rs 37.5 lacs was withdrawn by petitioner Vijay Pal and Rs 40 lacs by petitioner Neetu Yadav. Photograph of petitioner Vijay Pal has been pasted as account holder Mithlesh whereas photograph of one Vijay Kumar who is absconding has been pasted as photograph of N.P.Sinha. Addresses in both the accounts are that of petitioner Vijay Pal. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners are in custody since 9.10.2008 and the case is triable by Magistrate. Learned counsel for petitioner Neetu Yadav also contended that he has no role to play except that amount of Rs 40 lacs has been paid to him. The prayer for bail has been opposed by learned State counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties carefully and considered the rival contentions. In so far as Vijay Pal petitioner is concerned, prima facie he appears to be the main culprit as his photograph is pasted as photograph of Smt. Mithlesh complainant who has apparently been shown as a male person in the bank, obviously in collusion with bank official. Addresses of Vijay Pal petitioner has also been mentioned in the bank accounts opened in the name of complainant and her husband. Vijay Pal also received Rs 37.5 lacs out of the amount in question and no recovery has been effected from him. Criminal Misc. No. M-5883 of 2009 & Criminal Misc. No. M-6829 of 2009 -3- In so far as Neetu Yadav is concerned, parity was claimed with co-accused Tek Chand, who also received Rs 40 lacs out of the amount in question but has been granted bail. However, a sum of Rs 25 lacs and Scorpio vehicle were recovered from Tek Chand whereas a sum of Rs 3 lacs only has been recovered from Neetu Yadav. On enquiry, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not in a position to pay any further amount. Consequently, petitioner Neetu Yadav cannot claim parity with Tek Chand. Keeping in view the serious nature of the offences and the manner in which the same have been committed and the amount involved and all other circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, both the bail petitions are accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 07, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'