Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jainender Jain & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 28 May, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Criminal Misc. No. M-10171 of 2013 (O&M)
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-10171 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 28th May, 2013
Jainender Jain & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Ms.Tanu Bedi, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Piyush Bansal, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.Rupinder S.Khosla, Advocate,
for the complainant.
***
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, namely, Jainender Jain, Sudhir Jain and Dharampal Jain, who have been indicted for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.16, dated 05.03.2013, registered at Police Station, Division No.3, Ludhiana.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the whole case of the prosecution as depicted from the First Information Report is taken at its face value than also, it transpires that some dispute has arisen out of a business transaction. She further submits that the petitioners are reputed businessmen and in compliance of the order dated 26.03.2013 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners had joined the investigation and no more required by the police for any other purpose.
On 09.05.2013, when the present case came up for Criminal Misc. No. M-10171 of 2013 (O&M) ..2..
hearing at that time, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Baldev Raj, Police Station, Division No.3, Ludhiana, submitted that the petitioners had joined the investigation and were not required by the Investigating Agency at that stage for further custodial interrogation. Now the learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Inspector Brij Mohan of the same Police Station submits that the presence of the petitioners is required for recovery of the "Form H"
and the balance sheet of the firm owned by the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the complainant has also vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the ground that they had not only committed cheating but has also forged the documents to fulfil their ill-design. He also submits that the petitioners are the habitual offenders. He also submits that the petitioners had extended threats to the complainant and it is most likely that if they are extended the benefit of anticipatory bail than they may commit some serious offence. He also submits that the statement made by ASI Baldev Raj on 09.05.2013 was for extraneous consideration.
Heard. The material available on record has been perused. From the perusal of the FIR as enclosed with the petition as Annexure P-1, it prima-facie transpires that the complainant and the petitioners are the businessmen. During the course of business dealing, some dispute has arisen. Any opinion, if expressed by this Court at this stage regarding the maintainability of the said FIR, would affect the rights of either party, therefore, this Court is not expressing any opinion in that regard. The petitioners have joined the investigation as per the statement suffered by the learned counsel for the State today in the Court. The presence of the petitioners is Criminal Misc. No. M-10171 of 2013 (O&M) ..3..
required for the purpose of recovery of "Form H" and the balance sheet of the firm owned by the petitioners and for that purpose the petitioners can be directed to join the investigation even if this petition is allowed.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 26.03.2013 whereby the ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners is made absolute.
The petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
May 28, 2013 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge