In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... (1) Criminal Misc. No.M-21456 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:9.8.2010 Bhagat Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... (2) Criminal Misc. No.M-22518 of 2010 ..... Rambir .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pawan Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No.M-21456 of 2010 filed by Bhagat Singh son of Om Singh and Criminal Misc. No.M-22518 filed by Rambir son of Bhagat Singh. The respective petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 381 and 120-B IPC read with Sections 71 and 73 of the Information Technology Act. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Cri. Misc. Nos.M-21456 of 2010 etc. [2] complainant Dinesh Kasana. It is alleged that he had an overdraft limit with the Syndicate Bank for an amount of Rs.25 Lacs. The complainant had gone to Mumbai from 26.6.2010 to 29.6.2010. After his return he found that a sum of Rs.15 Lacs was short in his account. When the complainant inquired about it from the Manager of the Syndicate Bank, Palwal, then he was informed that this amount had been transferred in the account of one Rakesh Kumar son of Daulat Ram in the Syndicate Bank, Palwal. Chief Manager of the Bank of the petitioner also informed that they had suspicion that his signatures did not tally on the cheque but it was cleared since the complainant was an old and privileged client of the bank. One cheque No.196186 out of the cheque book that had been issued to the complainant had been removed and the signatures of the complainant were copied/scanned from the Bank record. The amount of the cheque was transferred in the account of Rakesh Kumar son of Daulat Ram on 28.6.2010. Thereafter, Rs.14 Lacs in cash was withdrawn on 29.6.2010 from the said account in the name of Rakesh Kumar. The complainant came to know that the ID proof in the record of the Bank account of Rakesh Kumar was false. The forgery, it was submitted, was not possible without the connivance of the bank officials. In the inquiry that was conducted it was found that the driver of the complainant, namely, Kuldeep had removed the cheque in question and opened a fake account in the name of Rakesh Kumar and then by misusing the cheque got the amount transferred in the account of Rakesh Kumar and withdrew cash. The disclosure statement of Kuldeep was recorded on 6.7.2010 in which he had named both the petitioners, namely, Bhagat Singh and Rambir. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the Cri. Misc. Nos.M-21456 of 2010 etc. [3] petitioners have been falsely implicated as the son of Bhagat Singh (petitioner), namely, Kiran Pal is said to be involved with Kuldeep. It is submitted that Kiran Pal was arrested on 3.7.2010 but was not produced in the Court. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application (Annexure-P.2) on 6.7.2010 seeking his production. It is submitted that the petitioner also made a complaint (Annexure-P.3) on 8.7.2010 to the Police Commissioner, Faridabad for initiating action against the Police officials for keeping his son Kiran Pal in illegal custody. Rambir (petitioner), who is the other son of the petitioner Bhagat Singh, it is stated has been named as an accused because the petitioner-Bhagat Singh has been filing complaints against the Police. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that an amount of Rs.3 Lacs is to be recovered from Bhagat Singh and Rs.4 Lacs from Rambir. The disclosure statement of Kuldeep accused was recorded on 6.7.2010 and that of Kiran Pal accused was recorded on 9.7.2010. Both the said accused in their respective statements have mentioned the involvement of the petitioners and named them as accused. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. A sum of Rs.15 Lacs was taken from the account of the complainant Dinesh Kasana. Kuldeep who is the driver of the complainant is said to have removed a cheque leaf from the cheque book of the complainant and by misusing it opened another account in the name of Rakesh Kumar. A sum of Rs.15 Lacs was transferred in the said account of Rakesh Kumar by forging the signatures of the complainant on cheque leaf that had been removed from the cheque book of the complainant. Kuldeep and the son of the petitioner, namely, Kiran Pal have named the petitioners to be involved Cri. Misc. Nos.M-21456 of 2010 etc. [4] in the case as accused. The statement of Kuldeep, the driver of the complainant was recorded on 6.7.2010 and he has named both the petitioners also to be involved in the case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been implicated only because a complaint (Annexure-P.2) was filed by Bhagat Singh for not producing his son Kiran Pal in Court. A complaint (Annexure-P.2) was filed by Bhagat Singh petitioner on 6.7.2010 alleging that his son Kiran Pal had been arrested on 3.7.2010 and was being illegally detained besides was not being produced in Court. It may, however, be noticed that Kuldeep accused was arrested on 6.7.2010 and in his disclosure statement recorded on the same day he named both the petitioners to be involved in the case. Besides, Kiran Pal, it is alleged, is in illegal detention since 3.7.2010 and complaint as regards the same was made after a delay of three days on 6.7.2010 (Annexure-P.2). There is no explanation for the delay. Therefore, when the complaint (Annexure-P.2) and the disclosure statement of Kuldeep naming the involvement of both the petitioners as accused was made and recorded on the same day i.e. on 6.7.2010, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioners have been involved only because Bhagat Singh (petitioner) had filed complaints (Annexures-P.2 and P.3) against the police officials. The complaint (Annexure-P.3) was made on 8.7.2010 that is after the disclosure statement of Kuldeep was recorded on 6.7.2010. On the complaint (Annexure-P.2) of Bhagat Singh petitioner, the learned Duty Judicial Magistrate on 7.7.2010 passed an order to the effect that the Investigating Officer had filed a written reply as per which accused Kiran Pal was not in their custody. Therefore, it was observed that the very Cri. Misc. Nos.M-21456 of 2010 etc. [5] purpose of filing the application was fulfilled and the application was sent back to the concerned Court for further orders. Kiran Pal accused is the son of the petitioner Bhagat Singh and brother of petitioner Rambir. He was arrested on 9.7.2010 and he has also named the petitioners to be involved in the case. Keeping in view the fact that Kuldeep had named the accused on 6.7.2010, the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been implicated because of the applications dated 6.7.2010 (Annexure- P.2) and 8.7.2010 (Annexure-P.3) is devoid of merit. Consequently, there is no merit in the petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. August 9, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*