CRM-M 14360 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 14360 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.8.2009 Narinder Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Haryana ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Partap Singh, Sr.DAG Haryana for the State/respondent. Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.234 dated 30.3.2009 under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC at P.S.City, District Karnal. The allegations against the petitioner are that he purchased a Tavera Car bearing registration No.HR 45A-1907 which was financed by Mohindra and Mohindra Finance Company, Karnal under the hire purchase agreement. At the time of registration of vehicle with the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioner forged sale letter deleting the word `hypothecation' so that word `hypothecation' may not be mentioned in the registration certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained loan from ICICI Bank again regarding purchase of the same vehicle. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for CRM-M 14360 of 2009 (O&M) -2- anticipatory bail before Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal which was dismissed on 14.5.2009. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that at the time of issuance of notice of motion, it was submitted that vehicle in question has already been handed over to the complainant bank. Thus, the petitioner was granted interim bail. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that he has joined the investigation. Counsel for the State assisted by the counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that though the petitioner has already joined the investigation but the vehicle was not surrendered but it was taken into possession by the Finance Company. It is also submitted that the petitioner has apparently committed fraud by forging the documents and obtained loan from ICICI Bank. Keeping in view the act and conduct of the petitioner as well as the seriousness of the offence, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and hence the same is hereby dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 19.8.2009 Judge Meenu