Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

requested the investigating Agency to investigate the matter and file case against the culprits. During investigation, police took into custody the record pertaining to account No.4503000100044775 and also interrogated Pardeep Kumar, who had been running the affairs of NGO, referred hereinabove. During investigating, Pradeep Kumar revealed that person namely Sh. Gurpreet Singh, had given him aforesaid cheque at Kala Amb. Police also interrogated Sh. Gurpreet Singh, who disclosed that person namely Sh. Amardeep Singh got him introduced to Dharamvir Singh, R/o of Delhi. On 24.11.2017, police arrested Gurpreet Singh, Amardeep Singh and Dharamvir Singh and since then they are behind the bars, whereas, Pradeep Kumar obtained anticipatory bail from the Co-ordinate bench of this Court i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.1582 of 2017, which came to be confirmed on 4.1.2018. Persons named hereinabove have further disclosed that one Sh. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, who had been rendering services as Clerk in the postal Department at Delhi came into their contact during demonetization and since then they had been indulging in preparation and manufacturing of fake cheques and National Saving Certificates. Police also arrested person namely Arshad , who in lieu of money paid to him by the bail petitioners, named hereinabove used to bring fake cheques. On 26.11.2017, police arrested accused namely Rajesh Kumar Panday. Subsequently, on 5.12.2017 .

Investigating Agency also arrested another co-accused Arshad Ahmad, who at first instance denied his involvement in the crime alleged to be committed by the persons named above in the FIR, but subsequently, got one printer, laptop and other material allegedly used for preparation of fake cheques, recovered from Delhi, which have been further sent to SFSL, Junga for chemical analysis .

4. Mr. Rupinder Singh, learned counsel representing the bail petitioners, while referring to the status report placed on record by the investigating agency, forcibly contended that no case is made out against the bail petitioners because no fake cheques have been recovered from their custody. Learned counsel further contended that otherwise also cheque allegedly presented in the bank was not encashed and as such, no pecuniary loss, if any, has been caused to the bank. Mr. Rupinder Singh, learned counsel, further contended that bare perusal of status report nowhere reveals that incriminating evidence, if any, has been collected so far by the investigating agency against the bail petitioners and as such, they cannot be kept in illegal detention for indefinite period, especially when investigation in the case is complete and nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioners. While inviting attention of this Court to the order dated 4.1.2018, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.MP(M) No.1582 of 2017, titled as .

5. To the contrary, Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing the aforesaid prayer for grant of bail having been made on behalf of the bail petitioners, strenuously argued that keeping in view the gravity of offence allegedly committed by the bail petitioners, they do not deserve to be shown any leniency, rather needs to be dealt with severely. Learned Additional Advocate General while inviting attention of this Court to the status report, contended that it stand duly established on record that all the bail petitioners are the part of racket, who used to prepare fake cheques and bonds of the different banks. While fairly acknowledging the fact that investigation in the case is almost complete and nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioners herein, learned Additional Advocate General contended that .

used by the bail petitioners for preparing/manufacturing fake cheques and bonds etc. have already been taken into custody by the investigating agency. Otherwise also, bare perusal of status report nowhere indicate the actual role, if any, played by the bail petitioners towards preparation of fake cheques. Though, there is reference in the status report with regard to involvement of bail petitioners in similar crimes in past also, but no evidence in this regard has been made available on record.