Crl. Misc. No. M-9811 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-9811 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: August 5, 2010 Rakesh Chander Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Keshav Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. Mr. VK Jindal, Advocate, for the complainant. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. Petitioner-Rakesh Chander Sharma, has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 149 dated 4.3.2009 registered at Police Station Sadar Karnal, under Section 406 IPC. He has has averred therein that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. In fact, he was a very close family friend of the complainant and made investments in various firms of the complainant. Previously, he was working as Assistant Manager (Civil) in Thapar Ballapur Industries, Yamuna Nagar, and when he came in contact with the complainant, he allured him to join his company/concern and to make investments, for sharing profits, in his various firms, on the basis of Crl. Misc. No. M-9811 of 2009 2 percentage, like a partner. Accordingly, he joined as AGM (Project) of M/s Royal Builders at a monthly salary of Rs. 35,000/- in the month of January, 2007. He made investments in different firms of the complainant and his son Vishal Bhatia, which included the petrol pump at Karnal, accounts of which were being maintained by the relatives of the complainant. In all, he invested a sum of Rs. 15,96,360/-. in the firms of the complainant. The complainant suffered a great financial crunch on account of demolition of his hotel Royal Paradise situated at Karnal Highway and a huge liability was pending against him. The complainant started diverting the funds from the petrol pump to the other firms. Whenever he demanded his share and the amount back, the complainant threatened him because he found that there were illegal activities and transactions being conducted in violation of the income tax and other laws and he showed his inability to continue with the complainant and asked him to settle the account. It was with great difficulty that the account was prepared by Sunil Sharma showing the total investments and the expenditures and those accounts show that various amounts are due to him from the complainant. No such offence under Section 406 IPC is made out against him from the contents of the FIR. It has been narrated by the complainant in the FIR that the petitioner was appointed as Manager, in-charge of the petrol pump being run under the name and style of Royal Petro, who used to manage, control and supervise the running of that petrol pump, including the sale and purchase of diesel and petrol and operation of the bank account/account books. Just one day before lodging of the FIR, it came to his knowledge that the petitioner had run away with his family after locking the house and after playing a big fraud. After going through the available record in the Crl. Misc. No. M-9811 of 2009 3 petrol pump, it was found that he had sold HS-diesel in black market. It was also found that he had taken away the account books and other relevant documents in order to save his skin for the forgery committed by him in maintaining false and fabricated accounts. On notice of motion having been issued, the State counsel appeared and contested the petition. Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate, put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has been running three concerns under the names M/s Royal Petro, M/s Royal Paradise and M/s Royal Builders. In fact, the petitioner was employed as AGM in the Royal Builders on monthly wages to the tune of Rs. 35,000/-. He was never employed as Manager in Royal Petro and as such there was no question of his selling any such HS-diesel in black or to fabricate or manipulate the account books of that concern. He had been investing huge amounts in all the three concerns and the amounts so invested by him were reflected in the account books. Those amounts run into lakhs. When the petitioner asked the complainant to settle the account, he got false FIR registered against him. It is not a case where the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. He also submitted that the interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner and he joined the investigation and, as such, there is no ground for holding that his custodial interrogation is required. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel and the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner was working as Manager in Royal Petro and had been putting his signatures as Crl. Misc. No. M-9811 of 2009 4 such on the bills, vide which the diesel and other petroleum products were being purchased. All the accounts of Royal Petro were being prepared by him and he made false and forged entries in those account books in order to misappropriate huge amount and had taken all those account books with him in order to conceal the illegal acts. In these circumstances, there is no question of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and his custodial interrogation is required in order to elicit the real facts and to recover the records from him. In support of her submissions, so made by the learned State counsel, she had shown the bills purported to bear the signatures of the petitioner as Manager of Royal Petro and vide those bills, HS-diesel was purchased by this concern. In order to make her submission probable, she also referred to a document purported to have been signed by the petitioner being the President of the Society, dealing with a cause against the crime. It was found from the bare perusal of those documents that these signature cannot be said to be of one and the same person. At no stage, the investigating agency made any efforts to obtain specimen signatures of the petitioner and to get the same compared with his alleged signatures on the bills. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the documents annexed with the present petition as Annexures P/2 to P/4. A perusal thereof shows that the petitioner had been making investments in Royal Petro and Royal Paradise. As on 14.4.2008, a sum of Rs. 5,10,577/- was lying to his credit in Royal Paradise and a sum of Rs. 21,87,283/- was lying to his credit in Royal Petro on 30.12.2008. These documents support the contention of the petitioner that he had been Crl. Misc. No. M-9811 of 2009 5 investing huge amounts in different concerns of the complainant. Attention of this Court has also been drawn towards the certificate issued by Royal Builders to the effect that the petitioner had been paid salary of Rs. 1,80,000/- for the financial year 2007-2008. That document creates confidence in the stand of the petitioner that he was employed by the complainant in his concern Royal Builders. That negatives the contention made in the FIR that he was employed as Manager in Royal Petro. From the documents placed on the record and the circumstances discussed above, it appears that the complainant got lodged false FIR against the petitioner in order to usurp his amount, which was invested by him in his different concerns. In that eventuality, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner is hereby made absolute subject to the following conditions:- (i) He shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer; (ii) he shall not offer any any threat, promise, or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer/Court; and (iii) he shall not leave the limits of this country without prior permission of the Court. However, whatever has been said while deciding the present petition shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. August 5, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-9811 of 2009 6