Om Parkash Jain vs State of Haryana

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—By filing the present petition u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 395 dated 19.8.2012, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar, Ambala. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is an old age person. He is neither partner, nor witness. He is not the beneficiary. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner.

Heard.

There are specific allegations against the petitioner and he alongwith other co-accused hatched a conspiracy that despite the fact that R.L. Jain had 65% share in the alleged business, formed another partnership business without impleading the LR of R.L. Jain, as beneficiary and later on sold the said partnership business including the land beneath it and its building to one Charanjit Kaur.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in State Rep. by the C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma, has held as under:-

The custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order u/s 438 of Cr.P.C.

Keeping in view the serious nature of allegation, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Accordingly, no case is made out to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed.