Criminal Misc M- 12958 of 2010 v. State of Haryana

The FIR seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The petitioner in the case has been registered against the petitioner on the complaint of Ashok Kumar, General Manager for the Managing Director, Haryana State Roads and Bridges Development Corporation, Panchkula (Corporation – for short). It has been alleged by the complainant that the petitioner was authorized to collect the Toll Tax on Toll Point No.16 on Sohna-Nuh-Ferozepur Jhirka-Alwar road, vide letter dated 30.5.2008. He furnished two FDRs dated 21.5.2009 for an amount of Rs 40,00,000/- and Rs 31,00,000/- respectively. The said FDRs were sent to the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Kandhla (UP) by registered post for their verification. The Bank verified the authenticity of the FDRs vide letter dated 6.8.2008. The Manager, UCO Bank, Kandhla Branch, vide letter dated 18.10.2008 intimated that Sh RK Garg, Deputy Chief Officer (Vigilance) from Zonal Office in UP would be visiting the complainant- Cr Misc M-12958 of 2010 2 Corporation on 20.10.2008 for investigating the FDRs issued by the Kandhla Branch, which were pledged with the complainant-Corporation. Said Sh Garg on visit, informed that these FDRs were fake documents issued on Computer scanned stationery. It was informed that the FDRs were issued by the UCO Bank, Kandhla Branch for an amount of Rs 40,000/- and Rs 31,000/- only. The Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Bareilly, has further intimated vide letter dated 22.10.2008 that two call deposits (FDRs) were purchased on 21.5.2008 for an amount of Rs 40,000/- and Rs 31,000/-. Later, it was revealed that the FDRs on the computer scanned stationery with the same printed numbers had been prepared for Rs 40,00,000/- and Rs 31,00,000/- respectively. These were deposited with the complainant-Corporation for obtaining the contract in his name. The stationery that was used, was not genuine stationery of the Bank; rather it was computer scanned stationery. Later, on 4.11.2008, the petitioner gave fresh FDRs as security. On 2.1.2009, his contract was terminated due to non-payment of instalments in time and the security, which he had deposited, was forfeited. According to the petitioner, he had dealings with one Manoj Kumar who was doing the work of taking toll bridges on contract in the State of Haryana. The petitioner himself belongs to Jabalpur and he had helped said Manoj Kumar to tide over his financial crises. In the month of May 2008, the petitioner requested Manoj Kumar to make necessary arrangements for depositing Rs 72,00,000/- by FDRs. The case of the petitioner is that the FDRs for an amount of Rs 40,00,000/- and Rs 31,00,000/- were prepared by Manoj Kumar and the petitioner innocently submitted the same taking them to be genuine. Cr Misc M-12958 of 2010 3 After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner had indeed submitted two FDRs for an amount of Rs 40,00,000/- and Rs 31,00,000/-, which were found to be not genuine. On verification of the matter from the UCO Bank, it transpired that these were on computer scanned stationery. The actual FDRs were issued for an amount of Rs 40,000/- and Rs 31,000/- only. Thereafter, the computer scanned FDRs were submitted to the complainant-Corporation. The stand of the petitioner that Manoj Kumar – a business associate, helped him in procuring false FDRs which the petitioner innocently submitted, is to be inquired into and determined by the investigating authorities. It is, however, not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the covering letter of the FDRs that were submitted, was signed by him and it was mentioned by him that the FDRs were being submitted for an amount of Rs 40,00,000/- and Rs 31,00,000/-. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 13.4.2010 while declining bail to the petitioner has observed that during investigation it was found that on 21.5.2008 i.e. the date of preparation of the FDRs, the petitioner had signed voucher No.10 and voucher No.11 for Rs 40,000/- and Rs 31,000/- i.e. for an amount of Rs 71,000/-, as per call deposit register of UCO Bank. Thereafter, the FDRs were scanned by computer and prepared for Rs 71,00,000/-, which were handed over to the complainant-Corporation. In this manner, the contract of Toll No.16 was obtained. It is also observed that prima facie the two FDRs dated 21.5.2008 were prepared by the petitioner because he had got his account in UCO Bank Kandhla for operating the FDRs. As per Police report, the application form for opening the account was also bearing the photograph of the petitioner along with copies of his Driving License and PAN card. According to the report of the FSL, Madhuban, the FDRs in Cr Misc M-12958 of 2010 4 question were prepared after scanning by colour dot-matrix printer. Therefore, it was observed that at this juncture, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is a victim of frame up of a deep-rooted conspiracy hatched by Manoj Kumar. The said reasoning in the facts and circumstances is sound and warrants no interference. In the circumstances, the manner of preparation of the FDRs by the petitioner is to be considered and gone into by the investigating authorities. It is well known that considerations governing the Court’s decision on an application seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC are materially different from that seeking post-arrest bail or for that matter even seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal before a higher court. In the case of pre-arrest bail, the advantage of custodial interrogation for the purpose of eliciting more and useful information and material is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extra ordinary in character. In the circumstances, no ground for the grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. This petition is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would surrender; however, his application for the grant of regular bail be considered expeditiously. In the circumstances, in case the petitioner surrenders within three days from the preparation of copy of this order and files an application for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the concerned Court within two days after the expiry of Police remand, if any.

5.5.2010 ASR ( S.S.SARON ) Judge