Crl.M.No.M-26610 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1. Crl.M.No.M-26610 of 2010 (O&M) Sanjay Sharma .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent 2. Crl.M.No.M-32644 of 2010 (O&M) Noorie Rai @ Narinder Kaur .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent Date of decision: November 25, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.T.S.Sangha, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Narinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.M.No.M-26610 of 2010. Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate and Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.M.No.M-32644 of 2010. Ms.Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions bearing Crl.M.Nos.M-26610 and 32644 of 2010, filed by petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No.106, dated 2.8.2010, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Goraya, Jalandhar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed separately by learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. This Court while issuing notice of motion in Crl.M.No.M- Crl.M.No.M-26610 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 26610 of 2010, filed by petitioner-Sanjay Sharma for grant of anticipatory bail passed the following order on 10.9.2010:- “Crl.M.No.47476 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-26610 of 2010 Contends that petitioner is not, in any way, concerned with the present case and that he is being falsely implicated merely on the ground that at one time main accused Smt.Noorie Rai used to work for the petitioner in his business establishments on contract basis and however, she stopped working with him for the last two years. Further contends that petitioner helped the police in locating her and however, she could not be located and hence, petitioner is being falsely implicated in this case. Notice of motion for 1.10.2010. However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused Sanjay Sharma that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has already joined the investigation and that he is being falsely implicated in this case simply on the ground that he is known to main-accused-Noorie Rai. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused-Smt.Noorie Rai @ Narinder Kaur that petitioner- accused -Sanjay Sharma is the main accused and that he has misused his relations with petitioner-accused Noorie Rai @ Narinder Kaur and it was he who presented the cheque and withdrawn the amount though the account of the petitioner-accused was used. It has been further argued that it was he who forged the cheque. Applications for anticipatory bail filed by both the petitioners- accused have been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent-State. Crl.M.No.M-26610 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Written reply has also been filed on behalf of the respondent-State in the application filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused- Sanjay Sharma. Brief allegations are that the present FIR was registered at the instance of Shri T.S.Rawat, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Goraya Atta, District Jalandhar, against the petitioner-accused Noorie Rai on the allegations that on 28.7.2010, an unknown person presented the cheque bearing No.288757 dated 28.7.2010 for Rs.21,00,000/- in the account bearing No.2057000100683477 maintained at Punjab National Bank at Branch Office Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, alongwith the transfer voucher. The transfer entry was executed by officials of the bank. Thereafter the amount was withdrawn by the petitioner-accused -Noorie Rai from the said account. It has also been alleged in the FIR that cheque bearing No.288757 which was presented in the bank alongwith transfer voucher was in fact for Rs.3,000/- and the same was issued by M/s.General Energy Management Systems Pvt. Ltd., Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi, in the name of one Sanjeev Kumar and however, the same was forged and Rs.3000/- were converted into Rs.21,00,000/-. It has been stated in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent- State that money was withdrawn by petitioner-accused Noorie Rai and the money was paid to her by Cashier of the bank on 29.7.2010 as she was personally known to the Cashier of the bank and they were having family relations. It has also been mentioned that accused Noorie Rai was contacted on her mobile phone through mobile phone of Head Cashier of the Bank, Mr.G.S.Verma as he was personally known to her and however, she switched off her mobile phone and bank officials lateron came to know that Noorie Rai had gone somewhere alongwith co-accused Sanjay Sharma. Hence, the amount of forged cheque was deposited in the account of Noorie Rai and the said amount was also withdrawn by her and hence she is beneficiary of the forged cheque/amount. Petitioner-accused Sanjay Sharma is being implicated in this case on the allegations that he was also known to co-accused Noorie Rai and and that it was he who presented the cheque in the account of Noorie Rai and that he accompanied Noorie Rai at the time of withdrawal of the amount from the account. Crl.M.No.M-26610 of 2010 (O&M) -4- Hence, in view of these facts I am of the view that petitioner- accused Noorie Rai is the main accused in this case as the cheque was deposited in her account and amount was withdrawn by her from her account, whereas co-accused Sanjay Sharma is being implicated merely on the ground that he deposited the cheque in her account and accompanied her at the time of withdrawal of the amount and both are having close intimacy to each other. In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, bail application filed by petitioner-accused Sanjay Sharma for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed. Order dated 10.9.2010 granting him interim bail is, hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner- accused Noorie Rai @ Narinder Kaur is, hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Both the present petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 25.11.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge