PUNEET SABHARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 80/2011 under Sections 419/420/468/471 I.P.C. registered at PS Paschim Vihar, Delhi on the complaint of one Sanjeev Kumar, Associate Manager, FCU, Bajaj Finserve. The Complainant has alleged in his complaint that the Petitioner got financed a Samsung LCD on the basis of forged and fabricated documents from M/s Sargam Electronics, Paschim Vihar, Delhi.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the present complaint relates only with regard to the finance of LCD on the basis of forged documents. Even if during investigation other forged PAN cards have been recovered, the same do not relate to the present case and as and when some evidence and complaints come forward, fresh FIRs thereon will be registered and thus, the Petitioner cannot be kept in custody for the reason that the Petitioner may be involved in other similar offences. No other FIR has been registered as yet. The finance companies are not prohibited from lodging further FIRs. The gravity of the allegations in the present FIR only relate to the Petitioner getting financed a Samsung LCD worth Rs. 51,900/- from the Complainant. The investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. The Petitioner is no more required for the investigation. His present addresses have been verified. The address of his father has already been verified. The Petitioner will not abscond or flee from justice or tamper with the evidence. It is also stated that even if five-six PAN cards have been recovered, only one PAN card has been used and there is no allegation that the Petitioner has used the other PAN cards.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the petitioner posed as Puneet Kharbanda and secured a loan from the Complainant. After the arrest, on his disclosure forged documents and 21 stamps of various companies and banks were recovered. Five-six PAN cards were also recovered from the Petitioner which had the photograph of the Petitioner but different identities. It is contended that besides the PAN cards initially on interrogation the Petitioner gave his address as 47/13, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi which on verification was found to have been sold by the Petitioner's family five years ago. However, subsequently thereafter Petitioner gave his right address and the same has been verified to be correct and thus, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.