CRM-M 20388 of 2008 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M 20388 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12.11.2009 Raj Kumar ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Narender Sura, AAG Haryana for the respondent/State. Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate for the complainant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.178 dated 3.6.2008 under Sections 420/467/471/380/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Karnal. The allegations, in brief are that on the pretext of a partnership, the complainant was allured by the petitioner and got a sum of Rs.3,65,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- was paid to him by cheque No.197912 drawn on UCO Bank, Branch GT Road, Karnal which was encashed by the petitioner by signing on its back at two places but the petitioner in connivance with co-accused removed the machinery which was installed in the premises without the consent and knowledge of the complainant and has, thus, committed the offence as alleged. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal CRM-M 20388 of 2008 -2- by a detailed order dated 7.8.2008. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 13.8.2008 and the petitioner was granted interim bail. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to join the investigation but according to the police, the petitioner was not cooperative in the investigation as neither he handed over the partnership deed, nor got recovered the machinery/case property. Thus, the State counsel prayed for dismissal of the bail application. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner has argued that insofar as the machinery is concerned, even according to the complainant, it was taken away by accused No.2 Ravinder Saini. However, the learned State counsel has submitted that Ravinder Saini (accused No.2) has already been declared innocent and the machinery is to be recovered from the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is evident that there was a partnership between the complainant, petitioner and Ravinder Saini. The said partnership deed is in possession of the petitioner which is to be recovered. Similarly, the machinery that has been removed is also to be recovered, therefore, in my view the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required at this stage so that aforesaid recoveries could be effected. Hence, the present bail application is hereby dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 12.11.2009 Judge Meenu