Rakesh vs State Of Haryana on 14 July, 2009

 CRM No. M-18562 of 2009                                1




    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
              HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                               CRM No. M-18562 of 2009 (O&M)
                               Date of decision: 14.7.2009

Rakesh                                             ...Petitioner

                             Versus

State of Haryana                                   ...Respondent


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:    Mr. S.K. Pawar, Advocate, for the petitioner.


Rajan Gupta, J.

This is a petition praying for pre-arrest bail in a case,

registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471

IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 31, Faridabad, vide FIR No.367

dated 18th November, 2008.

The allegations against the petitioner are that his wife had

obtained a loan from ICICI Bank for the purchase of a car by submitting

certain documents which were later on found to be forged. The

petitioner had stood guarantor for repayment of the loan. However, in

the documents, he reflected himself as Ravi Kumar son of Deen Dayal.

The allegations are that the petitioner had cheated the bank and a car

dealer by committing forgery, impersonation etc. The petitioner pasted

his photographs on the documents but showed his name therein as Ravi

Kumar, while his actual name is Rakesh son of Daulat Ram.
CRM No. M-18562 of 2009 2

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

amount of Rs.2,63,000/- has already been repaid by wife of the

petitioner and the car in question has been released on Sapurdari.

According to the counsel, the petitioner is not liable in any manner for

the alleged crime.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given

careful thought to the facts of the case.

It is evident that allegations against the petitioner are that

he submitted certain documents to the bank which bore the name of

Ravi Kumar with photograph of the petitioner. He stood guarantor on

the basis of these documents. The bank sanctioned the loan by taking

the documents to be genuine. It is clear that allegations against the

petitioner are serious in nature. A protective order if granted by this

court, may stand in the way of the investigating agency to take the

investigation to its logical end.

Under the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for

granting the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The

petition is devoid of merits. The same is hereby dismissed.

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
July 14, 2009
‘rajpal’