Alok Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 111 dated 7.5.2010 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sector 10, Gurgaon.
(2.) THIS Court vide order dated 28.6.2010 has directed to release the petitioner on interim bail. Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R.K. Trikha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has vehemently argued that the only case, as per the prosecution story, against the petitioner is that petitioner has identified Vijay Kumar, the main accused, in the bank to open the account in the name of S.K. Trading Company Proprietor Vijay Kumar. Mr. Cheema has further argued that, as per prosecution story, cheque of Rs. 28 lac was deposited in the newly opened account of M/s S.K. Trading Company, which was issued by C.C.S. Computers Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Cheema has further argued that after four days, different four cheques were issued to withdraw Rs.26 lac from the account of S.K. Trading Company; however, bank manager did not clear those cheques and wanted to enquire from Vijay Kumar, the proprietor of S.K. Trading Company, as to whether he has issued those cheques, but mobile phone of Vijay Kumar was switched off, therefore, all the four cheques were stopped. Mr. Cheema has further argued that even if it is found to be correct that S.K. Trading Company was not the real firm and Vijay Kumar has opened fictitious account in the bank in the name of S.K. Trading Company, it would not amount to cheating or fraud on the part of the petitioner. Mr. Cheema has further argued that petitioner has identified Vijay Kumar and petitioner is not supposed to know as to whether Vijay Kumar was running a proprietorship firm in the name of S.K. Trading Company. Mr. Cheema has further argued that admittedly cheque of Rs. 28 lac was issued by C.C.S. Computers Pvt. Ltd. and was got deposited in the account of S.K. Trading Company Proprietor Vijay Kumar. What was the purpose of that transaction, petitioner has absolutely no concern. Mr. Cheema has further argued that petitioner shall participate in the investigation as and when he is required to do so by the Investigating Officer. Mr. Cheema, while relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2011 (1) RCR 126, has argued that irrational and indiscriminate arrest must be avoided. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Kerala v. Raneef, 2011 (1) RCR 381 and argued that in the event of rejection of the bail application, time spent in jail during the trial cannot be restored to the accused in the event of his acquittal.
(3.) AS per Mr. Gaurav Dhir, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on the instructions of ASI Atma Ram, Investigating Officer, has stated that petitioner has participated in the investigation, however, he is not providing full co -operation and avoiding the questions, therefore, order dated 28.6.2010, granting interim bail may be revoked and petition may be dismissed. He has further submitted that purpose of deposit of Rs. 28 lac and attempt to withdraw huge amount of Rs. 26 lac is to be investigated, therefore, custodial interrogation is required. He has further stated that Vijay Kumar has furnished forged I.D. proof and to know the source of forged I.D. proof custodial interrogation is must.;