Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2010

PRESENT: Mr.Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr.DAG, Haryana. **** ORDER This petition has been filed on behalf of petitioners Rakma and Balesher for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 460 dated

8.7.2009 under Sections 406, 420, 467,468,471,120-B IPC registered at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat. Notice of motion was issued on 29.3.2010 and while issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were not named in the FIR and moreover, neither their case falls in the category where loan has been taken and tractor has not been purchased nor where the tractor has been sold further without repayment of the loan. The tractor is still in possession of the petitioners and the petitioners are ready to deposit the amount of balance instalments due to them as per instructions of the Bank. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana for

1.4.2010. To be heard with Crl. Misc. No.M-331 of 2010. In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be Crl. Misc. No. M- 8861 of 2010 [2] released on interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. They shall join the investigation as and when required by the investigating officer. They shall also comply with the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., which are as under:- (i)that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii)that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (iii)that the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” The case was adjourned on various dates and the petitioners were directed to join the investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case and they have not been named in the FIR. The petitioners have not availed any benefit of loan for purchase of tractors as neither tractors were purchased by them nor sold further without repayment of the loan. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are not in arrears of any loan amount and tractors are in their possession and if any amount of loan is due towards them, they are ready to make payment of that amount. Mr.S.S.Mor, learned Sr.DAG, Haryana opposes the bail on the ground that it is not a simple case of repayment of loan Crl. Misc. No. M- 8861 of 2010 [3] amount availed by the petitioners. In these cases, the petitioners were sureties of other accused who are also similarly situated and none of them has repaid the loan amount. Both the petitioners have joined the investigation but have not co-operated, no recovery of loan amount has been effected and the petitioners are not disclosing the involvement of other persons involved in the scam as so many tractors have been purchased and now tractors are not in possession of the persons who had purchased and the petitioners are also the persons who had availed the facility of loan but repayment has not been made and tractors are not in their possession.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are poor persons and are not in a position to re-pay the loan amount. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR as well as other documents available on the file. Although the petitioners have joined the investigation but they have not co-operated in the investigation. The tractors as well as the loan amount are yet to be recovered from the petitioners. They are not co-operating with the investigating agency by disclosing the correct facts and other details with regard to misappropriation of the tractors and they are also not ready to make repayment of the loan amount. In view of the conduct and the fact that they have not co- operated in the investigation and it is a case where custodial Crl. Misc. No. M- 8861 of 2010 [4] interrogation is required to know the truth of selling tractors which were purchased at the instance of some middle man and were sold further to some other persons in the adjoining State.

Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations against the present petitioners and their conduct being not co- operative in the investigation, they do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. However, Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are ready to surrender before the trial Court and move an application for regular bail and directions may be issued for decision of their bail application within some specified period . In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel, the petitioners are at liberty to move an application for grant of regular bail and in case the petitioners surrender before the trial Court and move an application for grant of regular bail, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law within a period of four days from the date of filing of the application. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE September 23, 2010. raghav