Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anant Ram Goel vs State Of Haryana on 23 November, 2011
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CRM-M-27840-2011 (O&M) [1]
::::::::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-27840-2011 (O&M)
Date of decision:23.11.2011
Anant Ram Goel ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Subhashish Kukreti, Advocate,
for the complainant.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.50 dated 30.07.2011, under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC at Police Station Naggal, District Ambala.
The FIR is registered by Naresh Kumar in which he has alleged that he is a Carpenter by profession and is running a shop at Ismailabad. He had done some wood work in the office of Anil Kumar when he had set up a Computer Centre at Ismailabad and as such, he was in contact with him. One day, Anil Kumar asked him to visit his Computer Centre where he had found Jai Parkash, present petitioner Anant Ram Goel and Ashok Kumar as well. They told him that they are sending people abroad with the assistance of two agents, namely, Paramvir and Satbir who are functioning in Phase X, Mohali (Punjab) under the name and style of "Bharti Group". It was also said that they had good relations in Australian Embassy and had asked him that they would CRM-M-27840-2011 (O&M) [2] ::::::::
send him and his son to Australia for which he had paid `25,000/- and his and his son's passports on 14.05.2009 and further paid `7,00,000/- on 27.07.2009. It is further mentioned in the FIR that the accused kept on assuring the complainant of sending him and his son abroad but he later on came to know that his application for visa has been rejected long back by the Australian Embassy. The accused convened a meeting in the shop of Ashok Kumar where it was admitted that they had taken `7,25,000/- from the complainant. An affidavit was also sworn in by Ashok Kumar but despite repeated requests, the amount was not returned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the business of sending the people abroad, rather the complainant had filed a private complaint before the JMIC, Ambala on the same set of facts and circumstances in which investigation was ordered to be conducted by the SHO, Police Station Naggal who has submitted his report and when it was received, the complainant withdrew the private complaint on 20.08.2011. He further submitted that the dispute is otherwise between the brother of the complainant, namely, Rajesh Kumar and his son Anil Kumar as Rajesh Kumar had already filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on account of dishonour of cheques. It is, thus, submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.
Notice of motion was issued and interim bail was granted to the petitioner.
After notice, learned State Counsel has filed an affidavit of Sub Inspector/I.O., CIA, Ambala dated 04.11.2011 in which it is mentioned that the petitioner is involved in other cases also. It is alleged that there is one FIR No.109 dated 07.03.2010, registered under Sections 406, 420 of IPC at Police Station Thanesar against the petitioner in which he is facing trial. One another Criminal Complaint titled as `Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited Vs. Anant Ram and another' filed under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and 420 IPC has also been referred in which the petitioner has been convicted and his land has also been attached pursuant to an award of the Civil Court.
Learned counsel for the complainant has also submitted that the CRM-M-27840-2011 (O&M) [3] ::::::::
criminal complaint was withdrawn because the FIR was lodged and not because the petitioner was found to be innocent by the police. He has referred to the affidavit of Ashok Kumar dated 04.06.2010, who is son-in-law of the petitioner, in which he has specifically mentioned that the petitioner along with other co-accused had received `25,000/- from the complainant on 14.05.2009 towards expenses and `7,00,000/- on 27.07.2009 towards their fee for the purpose of sending the complainant and his son to Australia and continuously kept them in dark without disclosing that their application for visa had already been rejected by the Australian Embassy.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail as this case requires custodial interrogation. In view thereof, the present petition is hereby dismissed and the interim order dated 14.09.2011 is hereby vacated.
November 23, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE