Criminal Misc. No.M-2378 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No.M-2378 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:29.01.2009 Ravinder Sood .....Petitioner Vs. U.T., Chandigarh .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. G.S. Brar, Advocate for Mr. H.S. Dhanoa, Advocate for the petitioner. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Ravinder Sood under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail in FIR No.144 dated 27.07.2008 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC at Police Station Sector-3, Chandigarh. The facts in brief are that the petitioner being a partner of M/s Span Technocrat Builders and Engineers, Ludhiana submitted the documents mentioned in the FIR to the complainant. On the basis of such documents, work was allotted to the petitioner. Later on, it was detected that the solvency certificate and the bank guarantees were not issued by the bank. Thus, in order to procure two works fraudulently, the petitioner submitted forged documents before the Executive Engineer-I and Executive Engineer-III, Chandigarh Housing board. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Criminal Misc. No.M-2378 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a sum of Rs.40 lacs is already lying deposited with the Chandigarh Housing Board and that being so, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. I have well considered this submission. As is borne out from the record, the petitioner has not only cheated the Chandigarh Housing Board but also committed fraud with the Bank as well, by forging balance- sheets, profits and loss account, audit reports as on 31.3.2004, 31.3.2005, 31.3.2006 and 31.3.2007, a provisional balance-sheet and profit and loss account as on 31.3.2008. This apart, he also forged bank guarantees and solvency certificate. It was found by the bank Manager on verification that the bank guarantees and solevency certificate were not issued by the bank. From the allegations, the petitioner appears to be the principal culprit. If the petitioner is admitted to bail, he may abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence. Consequently, I do not deem it fit to bestow the concession of bail upon the petitioner. Seuqelly, this petition is dismissed. January 29, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? No