Criminal Misc.-M No. 29076 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 29076 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.11.2011 Makhan Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. M. K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G. S. Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. On 13.10.2011, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, interim stay of arrest was granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation. In fact, it is a civil dispute. The petitioner and the complainant were to start a dairy business together, for which initially a sum of ` 45,000/- was given by the complainant to the petitioner, which was deposited in his bank account on 18.6.2010. Certain blank pronotes were got signed by the complainant without paying any amount to the petitioner. Those are being mis-used now. In the FIR, there are no details regarding the date on which the amount was allegedly paid and there is no mention about payment of ` 45,000/- which was deposited in his account. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that though the petitioner has joined investigation on 2.11.2011, however, Criminal Misc.-M No. 29076 of 2011 [2] recovery of ` 10,40,000/- is yet to be made from him. He has also referred to five pronotes on file with the Investigating Officer, in terms of which ` 10,00,000/- have been taken by the petitioner from the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that copy of one of the pronotes, which was in his possession, has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. The same does not contain signatures of any of the witnesses, though copy of the same pronote on the file of the police contains the signatures of two witnesses, which clearly shows that blank papers were got signed from the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made above, in my opinion, the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. The interim bail granted to the petitioner on 13.10.2011 is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 3.11.2011 mk