In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-9340 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:26.7.2010 Surinder Dalal .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Dr. Surat Singh, Advocate and Mr. Sunil Mund, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Copy of the order dated 21.4.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. No.M-18789 of 2008 and copy of the order dated 11.2.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP against the order dated 21.4.2009 passed by this Court filed in Court are taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) seeking quashing of the proclamation warrant dated 27.2.2010 (Annexure-P.1) issued against the petitioner by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon in FIR No.196 on 16.5.2008 registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Gurgaon for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the prosecution did not deliberately serve the summons/warrants issued against Cr. Misc. No.M-9340 of 2010 [2] the petitioner and by misleading the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon that the petitioner is avoiding service, obtained an order of proclamation warrants against the petitioner. Reply has been filed by the State. It is stated that non-bailable warrants issued by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon could not be executed on the petitioner as each time they were sent, he was not found available at the address while even raids were conducted. As such proclamation warrant was got issued against the petitioner from the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. It is submitted that proclamation was issued against the petitioner after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances. FIR No.196 dated 16.5.2008 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC stands registered against the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner is a Class-I Contractor of the Haryana Irrigation Department. He was a successful bidder for two works, namely, providing earth work and lining of Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Channel from KM 11.5 to 13-100 and 3 VR (village road) bridges and one drainage crossing STP Channel and 2 construction of pump houses at km 13.100 of STP Channel. The said work was allotted to him for execution. The departmental rule of building conditions required that for allocation of the work, the petitioner furnishes the performance security of Rs.10,50,000/- and Rs.3,20,000/- respectively by way of a bank guarantee in any form. The petitioner accordingly submitted two Short Term Deposit Receipts (SDRs) i.e. SDRs No.4172763 dated 11.12.2006 for an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- drawn on the Bank of India, Ghanta Ghar Chowk, Circular Cr. Misc. No.M-9340 of 2010 [3] Road, Bhiwani and SDR No.41172810 dated 21.6.2007 for an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- also drawn on the Bank of India, Ghanta Ghar Chowk, Circular Road, Bhiwani. During routine checking of the records of the said two SDRs by the Department of Irrigation of the Haryana Government, they were found to be without renewal. Therefore, the Irrigation Department represented and sent the SDRs through Sh. Surinder Ahlawat, Divisional Accountant of the Department to the Bank of India, Bhiwani Branch for renewal. The Bank vide letter dated 5.5.2008 informed that the SDRs were not the original but were coloured photostat copies and that the original SDRs with the Bank had been got encashed by the petitioner in his S.B. Account No.19101 on 18.6.2007 and 29.6.2007. It was also informed that the SDRs had been released by the Bank with the permission of the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department concerned. When the records of the Department were checked and the photo copies of the SDRs were obtained, it transpired that the signatures of the Executive Engineer had been forged. The petitioner, therefore, had submitted coloured photostat copies of SDRs as security for the work and had got the original encashed by forging the signatures of the Executive Engineer of the Department of Irrigation. This Court vide order dated 21.4.2009 had declined pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. It was observed that the petitioner had tendered coloured photo copies of the SDRs instead of the original SDRs. This indeed was with the intention to cheat the Department. Besides, the petitioner had withdrawn the SDRs on 18.6.2007 and 29.6.2007 purportedly under the signatures of Shri R.S. Berwal, Executive Engineer. In fact, Shri Berwal had retired from service on 31.5.2007 and, therefore, was not Cr. Misc. No.M-9340 of 2010 [4] competent to sign for the release of SDRs on the date of their withdrawal. The petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 21.4.2009 passed by this Court filed SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was withdrawn by him vide order dated 11.2.2010. Therefore, the anticipatory bail having been declined it cannot now be said that the petitioner is entitled to protection by staying his arrest on the ground that the proclamation has not been issued at his known address. In fact, a perusal of the proclamation dated 27.2.2010 (Annexure-P.2) shows that it had been issued against the petitioner for 3.4.2010. Therefore, the petitioner was well aware that he was required to appear in Court on 3.4.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also well aware of the fact that the petitioner was required to appear on the date the proclamation was issued. However, it is submitted that, if the petitioner appeared he would have been arrested. This in fact is the domain of the concerned Court and this Court after the application for pre-arrest bail has been declined is not to issue directions for not arresting him. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. July 26, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*