IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Nos. M-1411, M-1412, M-1413, M-1415, M-1416, M-1417, M-1418, M-1420, M-1421, M-1422, M-1423, M-1750, M-1751, M-1753, M-1765, M-4680 and M-4682 of 2011. Date of decision: 29.3.2011 Vicky Malhotra …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent Present : Mr. R.K. Handa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. S.S. SARON, J. This order will dispose of the 17 Crl. Misc. petitions (i.e. CRM Nos. M-1411, M-1412, M-1413, M-1415, M-1416, M- 1417, M-1418, M-1420, M-1421, M-1422, M-1423, M-1750, M- 1751, M-1753, M-1765, M-4680 and M-4682 of 2011) filed by Vicky Malhotra as these arise out of the same FIR. The petitioner in the respective petitions seek regular bail in case FIR No.96 dated 4.08.2009 registered at Police Station City, Hoshiarpur for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. Seventeen separate challans have been filed by taking one FIR as one instance and three separate instances in a single year as separate instances. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Shiv Walia. It is stated by the complainant Shiv Walia that he has a brick kiln and his wife Monika Walia had entered into an agreement to purchase 31 kanals 1 marla of land situated in village Adamwal with Jagdish Pal. The said agreement was entered into on 29.7.2009 in the presence of witnesses and a CRM Nos. M-1411, M-1412, M-1413, M-1415, M-1416, M-1417, M-1418, M-1420, M-1421, M-1422, M-1423, M-1750, M-1751, M-1753, M-1765, M-4680 and M-4682 of 2011. [2] cheque for `17 lacs as earnest money was given to Jagdish Pal. One month time was fixed for registration of the sale deed. The complainant made arrangement for the balance amount and met his Deed Writer Kuldeep Gogna in Tehsil Complex, Hoshiarpur. The complainant informed Kuldeep Gogna that the sale deed was to be registered on that day itself and that whatever the prescribed government fees was, the same be got deposited. At that time, partner of the complainant namely Mohinder Singh also accompanied the complainant. Kuldeep Gogna, Deed Writer asked Stamp Vendor namely Vikram Mehta to deposit the fee for purchase of stamp papers for registration of the sale deed by sending someone and to get the receipt. The agreement with Jagdish Lal was for `37 lacs but the Government rate fixed by the District Administration in respect of the land was `58,22,000/- for which stamp duty of `4,07,550 was to be deposited. Vikram Mehta, Stamp Vendor sent Vicky Malhotra (petitioner) whom he had kept with him to the complainant. In the presence of witnesses, the complainant gave `4,07,550/- in cash, to the petitioner Vicky Malhotra for depositing the same as government fees. Vicky Malhotra (petitioner) took the money and after sometime, Vicky Malhotra brought treasury receipt as well as bank receipt of State Bank of India, Hoshiarpur for `4,07,550/- dated 30.7.2009 which he gave to Kuldeep Gogna, Deed Writer. Kuldeep Gogna prepared the papers of the sale deed which he gave to the complainant. The complainant appeared before the Tehsildar and got the sale deed registered. Kuldeep Gogna asked the complainant to come on 3.8.2009 for getting the original registered sale deed. The complainant went to Kuldeep CRM Nos. M-1411, M-1412, M-1413, M-1415, M-1416, M-1417, M-1418, M-1420, M-1421, M-1422, M-1423, M-1750, M-1751, M-1753, M-1765, M-4680 and M-4682 of 2011. [3] Gogna on 4.8.2009 at 5.15 p.m. and after sometime Kuldeep Gogna gave him the original sale deed, treasury challan and the bank receipt. At the same time, when the complainant went through the papers, he got suspicious that there was over-writing on the bank receipt and `1,07,550/- was changed to `4,07,550/-. The complainant contacted the Deed Writer Kuldeep Gogna and Vikram Mehta. Both of them immediately called Vicky Malhotra (petitioner) on the seat of Kuldeep Gogna and talked about the embezzlement. After some time, Vicky Malhotra (petitioner) confessed that he had done over-writing on the bank and treasury receipts by changing the figure of `1,07,550/- to `4,07,550/- and that he had passed the same from the treasury for `1,07,550/- and had deposited `1,07,550/- in the Bank and had obtained receipt for the said amount and pocketed the balance amount of `3 lacs and he had changed the figure in the receipts in his hand from `1,07,550/- to `4,07,550/- and had put word ‘f’ before the word ‘one’ and made it into ‘four’. In this manner, the petitioner is said to have embezzled `3 lacs. There are other similar transactions in this manner for which he has been challaned. The prosecution has cited 80 witnesses in the case and so far 2 have been examined. The petitioner is in custody since 4.8.2009. The trial in the case is likely to take time. The case is triable by the learned Magistrate of the Ist Class. The provisions of Section 437 (6) CrPC would be attracted in the case. The recording of evidence started on 11.6.2010. In terms of Section 437 (6) CrPC, if, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable CRM Nos. M-1411, M-1412, M-1413, M-1415, M-1416, M-1417, M-1418, M-1420, M-1421, M-1422, M-1423, M-1750, M-1751, M-1753, M-1765, M-4680 and M-4682 of 2011. [4] offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.” The prosecution has to prove its case by leading evidence. Therefore, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner is admitted to bail. Accordingly, all the Crl. Misc. petitions (i.e. CRM Nos. M-1411, M-1412, M-1413, M-1415, M-1416, M-1417, M- 1418, M-1420, M-1421, M-1422, M-1423, M-1750, M-1751, M- 1753, M-1765, M-4680 and M-4682 of 2011) are allowed and the petitioner Vicky Malhotra in all the 17 challans shall be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate. (S.S. SARON) March 29, 2011 JUDGE amit