IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) Crl.Misc.No.M-16685 of 2009 (O&M) Shamsher Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent 2)Crl.Misc.No.M-18269 of 2009 (O&M) Ved Parkash ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Date of decision : 18.9.2009 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-16685 of 2009. Mr.K.S.Dhanora, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-18269 of 2009. Ms.Neena Madan, Addl.A.G., Haryana for the State. .... MAHESH GROVER, J. Both the aforesaid petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed praying for release of the petitioners in terms thereof in a case registered vide FIR No.306 Crl.Misc.No.M-16685 of 2009 (O&M) -2- dated 8.6.2009 under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120-B IPC, at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar. The petitioners, who are employees of HUDA have been accused of clandestinely removing the documents from the office file and thereby enabling a fraudulent sale transaction. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they are not involved in the commission of offence. In so far as petitioner Shamsher Singh is concerned, he states that he was not in charge of the file at the relevant time when such incident took place. He says that he has been implicated on the statement of Ved Parkash who is also petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-18269 of 2009. Ved Parkash petitioner in turn stated that there are other officials who are superior to him and who were responsible in dealing with the file and he has no role. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that with the connivance of the employees of HUDA the fraud has been committed. She further contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary to find out the extent of involvement and in all probability more facts are likely to tumble out. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail under the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. The allegations of corruption made against the petitioners point out to a deep rooted corrupt nexus existing between the employees of HUDA. These are serious matters as they affect the gullible people who are desirous of purchasing Crl.Misc.No.M-16685 of 2009 (O&M) -3- some property and are subjected to huge losses because of such frauds. No ground for bail. Dismissed. 18.9.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss