CRM No.M-22596 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-22596 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 25, 2011 Satish Kumar Kapoor ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Rai, DAG, Punjab. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition for a bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.39 dated 4.5.2010 under Section 420/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC at Police Station Mamdot, Tehsil and District Ferozepur. This is a case where the petitioner himself registered the FIR alleging 19 persons had taken loan from the Bank by producing forged revenue documents which were prepared by the Halqa Patwari. On August 08, 2011, the following order was recorded:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 19 persons had obtained a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- each from the bank which has been sanctioned by the petitioner on the basis of revenue records allegedly found to be manufactured by the Halqa Patwari. Learned State counsel submits that the said Halqa Patwari had unsuccessfully applied for anticipatory bail before this Court. However, he has not been arrested so far because some inquiry is going on against him. He states that all the loanees have stated in unequivocal terms that out of Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.50,000/- CRM No.M-22596 of 2011 -2- had been paid to the Halqa Patwari but still he has not been arrested so far by the Police, whereas the petitioner, who is the whistleblower, has been arrested." The SSP, Ferozepur was directed to be present in person in the Court and explain the circumstances under which the said Halqa Patwari has not been arrested so far. On 12.08.2011, S.P.(D) Ferozepur appeared before this Court and submitted that Halqa Patwari has been arrested. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has been involved in this case on the statement of co-accused which is not admissible. Counsel for the State has submitted that the persons taken into custody have specifically named the petitioner for receiving `15,000/- from each of them as a part of booty, `50,000/- was given to the Halqa Patwari whereas `35,000/- was retained by them. He further submit that challan has not been presented so far and the investigation is still pending. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve concession of bail at this stage because the investigation is still pending and challan has not been presented. Halqa Patwari has been recently arrested by the police and his interrogation may further give lead to the prosecution in the investigation. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed at this stage. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 25.08.2011 JUDGE manju