Crl. Misc. No. M 32609 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M 32609 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: November 21, 2011 Sanjeev Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. DS Rajput, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, DAG, Haryana. GURDEV SINGH, J. The petitioners—Sanjeev Kumar son of Ram Lubhaya and Rakesh Kumar son of Kasturi, have filed this petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 400 dated 7.12.2010 registered under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120 and 120B IPC in Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula. They have contended therein that they have not been named in the FIR and have been falsely implicated later on. The main allegations in the FIR have been made against other persons. The allegations levelled against them are inadmissible in evidence and have no value in the eyes of law. The alleged confession of the co-accused is not admissible in evidence. The alleged recovery has already been effected and no further recovery is to be made. They are not required by investigating agency and otherwise they are ready to join the investigation. It was on the written complaint of Deepak Ashri, ITO that the Crl. Misc. No. M 32609 of 2011 2 present FIR was registered. Besides narrating the practice which is being followed in the Income Tax Department, it has been narrated therein that the processing of the income tax returns submitted by the assessees had been given on contract to one Sanjay Kapoor, who deputed/hired several data entry operators for processing the income tax returns, while sitting in the office and refund cheques were being issued to the assessees for the refund of the income tax paid in excess, which were being signed by the respective Income Tax Officers and were being sent to them by speed post, after making entry in the despatch register. Some of the blank refund vouchers were found to have been stolen from the office, bearing serial numbers disclosed in the complaint. There appears to be nexus between the officials of the department and data entry operators and some outside key master mind. It appears that the stolen refund vouchers have been got encahsed by opening false/bogus bank accounts in the names of fictitious persons in the different bank. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the names of the petitioners do not figure in the FIR and the offences, if any, have been committed by the officials of the Income Tax Department as the refund vouchers were stolen from the office itself. In fact, the petitioners have been falsely implicated and, as such, they are entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that during the investigation, evidence has been collected against both the petitioners to the effect that they got opened accounts in different banks under different names, after affixing their photographs on account Crl. Misc. No. M 32609 of 2011 3 opening forms and that the stolen refund vouchers were duly filled up and got deposited by them in those accounts and subsequently, they have withdrawn the money from those accounts and the total amount so misappropriated comes to Rs. 5.50 crores. It is not a case where the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. The police file was produced by the learned State counsel and the same was duly perused. The Investigating Agency with great efforts collected the records from different banks, which includes the account opening forms, bearing the photographs of the petitioners. By using the same photographs, they opened accounts in different banks under different names. The refund vouchers were got deposited by them in those banks, details of which are given in the Annexures A and B, which shall be treated as part of this order. Subsequently, these amounts were withdrawn by them. Keeping in view the evidence so collected against the present petitioners, it can safely be said that the the petitioners committed serious offences, including offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Keeping in view the accusation against the present petitioners, gravity of the offences committed by them and the severity of punishment provided for those offences, I do not find any ground to grant them the benefit of anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed accordingly. November 21, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE