Crl.M.No.M-24608 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-24608 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 24, 2010 Anil Goswami and another .....Petitioners v. The State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Anand Chibbar, Advocate with Mr.Ranjit Chawla, Advocate for the petitioners. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.170, dated 28.7.2010, under Sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station NIT, Faridabad. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully. Brief allegations against the petitioners-accused are that they are Directors of Capital Wizard Stock Booking (P) Limited. Complainant is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of shares. Petitioners induced the complainant to purchase shares through their company. Petitioners obtained ration card, driving licence and PAN of the complainant for opening of account in his name with his ID. He was also provided client/user ID number SEC5-12847 on 1.10.2009 and it was represented that he had been appointed as sub broker for the petitioners. He started working with customers for trading of shares. He has paid ` 85 lacs to the petitioners. He was also provided internet facility by the company of the petitioners for doing trading. However, in the process, he suffered loss of `23,55,403.05 and the balance amount of `61,84,596.95 is to be recovered by the complainant from the petitioners, which they have been putting off. Crl.M.No.M-24608 of 2010 (O&M) -1- During investigation, the complainant produced before the Investigating Officer copy of the statement of account, cash bill, confirmation bill and copy of sown load filed. On the other hand, there is complete denial of any transaction with the complainant on the part of the present petitioners. It has been contended that the complainant had already made complaint to NSE, who vide Annexure P-7, had sought their comments and they sent their comments vide, Annexure P8, denying any transaction with the present complainant and thereafter, no action was taken by the NSE against the present petitioners. However, in view of the specific allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioners, at this stage total denial by the petitioners of any dealing with the present complainant does not appear to be correct. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary regarding the balance amount of the complainant. Police may require computers of the petitioners, i.e., data of sale and purchase etc. and other documents in their possession. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners- Anil Goswami and Sushil Goswami for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 24.8.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge