IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-2391 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.7.2010 Satvir Singh Gill and another ......Petitioners Vs. The State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Dinesh Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Mansur Ali,Advocate, for complainant. **** ORDER The present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioners Satvir Singh Gill and Manjit Singh for grant of concession of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 153 dated 26.12.2009 under sections 420/468/467/471/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Dasua, District Hoshiarpur. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 29.1.2010 and arrest of the petitioners was also stayed. It was ordered to be heard with Crl.Misc.No. M-2165 of 2010 filed by the co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case. Petitioner No.1 had worked with respondent No.2 from the year 1990 to December 2008 and was transferred to Dasua Unit about 9 years ago. Petitioner No.1 being posted on higher post was nothing to do with the field job as he had signed the loan Crl.Misc. No.M-2391 of 2010 [2] documents after passing through various stages on due scrutiny by the lower staff. Petitioner No.2 was working as Assistant Cane Manager and was not assigned the field job concerning selection of loanee and disbursement of loan. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the amount in dispute shown against petitioner No.2 in the FIR has already been received by the Mill on 28.10.2009 much prior to the registration of the FIR and petitioner No.1 had left the Mill w.e.f. December 2008. Mr. R.S.Rawat, learned AAG, Punjab has brought to the notice of the Court that the bail application filed by co-accused has already been dismissed by passing a detailed order and case of the present petitioners is also similarly situated as is clear from order dated 29.1.2010 vide which notice of motion was issued. As per allegations in the FIR, the accused in the case including the present petitioners entered into a criminal conspiracy with mala fide intention to defraud and cheat the company by fabricating and forging fake permits. On account of such fraud and forgery, the loan amount of Rs.3,39,266/- remained unpaid. The present petitioners in connivance with Pargat Singh and Gurvinder Singh withdrew Rs.1,39,151/- from the Company by fabricating permits No. 33426 dated 29.6.2008 and 33428 dated 24.4.2008. This loan amount remained unpaid on account of the fraud and forgery. Although efforts have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to show that being on the higher post, the petitioners were not having any role with the alleged fraud and forgery but that is a matter Crl.Misc. No.M-2391 of 2010 [3] of evidence which is to be seen in investigation. Lacs of rupees have been embezzled by the accused on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. As per allegations in the FIR, the petitioners along with other co-accused had created loan accounts on fake identities and had siphoned off huge amounts into their own pockets. There are specific allegations against the accused. Keeping in view the specific allegations and seriousness of the offences, the concession of anticipatory bail cannot be granted in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in State Represented by the CBI v. Anil Sharma 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 268 (SC), wherein it has been observed as under: “ We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation- oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to Crl.Misc. No.M-2391 of 2010 [4] third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” Moreover, bail application of co-accused has already been dismissed by this Court on 16.2.2010. In view of the facts mentioned above, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE July 15, 2010. raghav