S.S. Saron, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 420, 454 and 380 IPC.
3. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Bhavnish Kumar Ahlmad in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala. It has been alleged by the complainant regarding theft of a Court file of Civil Suit titled Sukhwinder Singh v. Nirmal Singh in a fraudulent manner. The complainant states that on 11.2.2010 at about 12.25 p.m. a person came to him and stated that his Advocate Mr. Achhar Kumar is to examine the case file titled Sukhwinder Singh v. Nirmal Singh which was fixed for 20.2.2010. An application for examination of the file was submitted to the complainant and he was asked to take out the file. The complainant brought the file and put the application for examination of the file in it. The file was placed aside on the table and the person who had come was asked to call his counsel. The complainant got busy in other work. In the meantime, the person who had come turned his face and called another person, namely, Buta Singh (son of the defendant-Nirmal Singh of the suit-the file of which was to be examined). The person who had come handed over the case file to Buta Singh without the permission of the complainant. The said person, namely, Buta Singh on the asking of the person who had come stole the file and fled away. The complainant raised an alarm and chased the said persons but due to rush in the Court, they ran away and stole the case file. The complainant went to the chamber of Shri Achhar Kumar, Advocate and he informed the complainant that Gurmeet Singh Dhillon (petitioner) and son of Nirmal Singh (defendant in the suit) had come to him. They after discussing their case titled Sukhwinder Singh v. Nirmal Singh had gone back. However, they brought an application drafted by him for inspection of the above noted case file, but did not come to him with the application for inspection of the file. Thereafter, the complainant came back to his room. He was sure that Gurmeet Singh Dhillon (petitioner) and Buta Singh aged about 25-26 years had fled away by committing theft of the file of the case titled Sukhwinder Singh v. Nirmal Singh. The nature of the case file relates to suit for recovery regarding monetary dealing. At the time, the staff of the complainant, namely, Reeta Rani-Copyist, Surjit Kaur-Execution Clerk and Jagjit Sigh-Criminal Ahlmad were present in the same room and they had witnessed the entire occurrence. The complainant could identify Gurmeet Singh Dhillon and Buta Singh if they appeared before him. It was requested that legal action may be taken against them. The application was submitted to the Presiding Officer of the Court. On this, the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide No. 187 dated 9.3.2010 forwarded the same to SSP of Patiala for registering a theft case of the case file titled Sukhwinder Singh v. Nirmal Singh. On the basis of the said allegations report No. 23 dated 16.3.2010 has been registered at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not connected with the case and is being falsely implicated. It is submitted that the petitioner, in fact, was at Chandigarh as he on the date of the incident deposited an amount of Rs. 5.00 Lacs in the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Agriculture Finance, Chandigarh, S.C.O. No. 153-154, Sector 9- C, Chandigarh. The petitioner had filed a writ petition i.e. CWP No. 707 of 2010 in this Court against the Kotak Mahindra Bank and an order dated 5.2.2010 (Annexure-P.3) was passed in which the petitioner was asked to bring demand draft for a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs in the Court or deposit the same with the respondent-Bank by the next date. The case was adjourned to 18.2.2010. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner on the date of the alleged incident i.e. 11.2.2010, in fact, had come to the office of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited at Chandigarh which is 70 kms. from Patiala and had deposited Rs. 5 Lacs on the said date. The receipt (Annexure-P.4) has been submitted and a photostat copy of the same has been filed in Court during the course of hearing. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation. Besides, there is delay from 11.2.2010 till 16.3.2010 in lodging the FIR.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and find no merit in the same. It may be noticed that the Ahlmad of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) has no reason to falsely name the petitioner as one of the persons who had taken the file. The petitioner is alleged to have come with an application for inspection of the file titled Sukhwinder Singh v. Nirmal Singh. The petitioner admittedly is the cousin brother of the defendant Nirmal Singh in the said suit. While the file was lying on the table of the Ahlmad, and he had turned his back, the petitioner handed over the file to his co-accused Buta Singh who is the son of the defendant Nirmal Singh in the suit, the file of which was to be examined. Then they both fled away from the Court room. The complainant went to Mr. Achhar Kumar, Advocate and apprised him of the file being taken from his custody. Mr. Achhar Kumar, Advocate stated that Gurmeet Singh Dhillon (petitioner) and son of Nirmal Singh (i.e. Buta Singh) had come to him and they after discussing their case had gone back. Thereafter, they brought an application drafted by the Advocate for inspection of the file but did not come to him with the application for inspection of the file. There is no reason whatsoever for Mr. Achhar Kumar, Advocate to state that Gurmeet Singh Dhillon (petitioner) had come to him on the day of the incident on 11.2.2010.
6. The question that the petitioner was at Chandigarh in regard to payment of Rs. 5 Lacs is not to be gone into at this stage and is to be considered by the investigating authorities. It may be noticed that the signatures of the petitioner on the customer receipt for the payment of the amount which is only initialed would have to be compared with the other standard signatures of petitioner to ascertain whether these are his. Even otherwise there is no time mentioned as to when the petitioner had deposited Rs. 5 Lacs on 11.2.2010 at the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited at Chandigarh. The distance from Chandigarh to Patiala is about 70 kms. and the amount could have been deposited any time after the incident or may be even before. The allegations of taking the Court file are serious in nature. As regards delay, it may be noticed that the matter was brought to the notice by Ahlmad to the Presiding Officer of the Court on the same day. Thereafter, it was forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate who forwarded the same vide No. 187 dated 9.3.2010. On the basis of the same, the FIR was registered on 16.3.2010. In the facts and circumstances, the delay is inconsequential as the application by the complainant who is the Ahlmad of the Court had been given on the same day as the date of incident.
7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, in case the petitioner surrenders by 14.4.2010 and applies for regular bail with advance notice to the learned Public Prosecutor, his application for regular bail shall be considered by the concerned Court after the period of police remand, if any, within next two days.
