ANIL NANDA Vs. STATE OF U T , CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for anticipatory bail. The offence is alleged to have been committed in the year 1980. It is alleged that the petitioner prepared forged documents and cheated the Punjab Finance Corporation by inducing them to give loan of a large sum of money on the invoice that he had to purchase a machinery of a retain capacity but in fact machinery of lesser capacity was purchased by the petitioner and installed in his concern. It is alleged by the prosecution that the intention of the petitioner right from the beginning was to cheat as otherwise on the machinery of lesser capacity the sum advanced would have been less. It is a moot point whether the intention of the petitioner right from the beginning was to purchase machinery of lesser capacity and the invoice had been obtained for a machinery of a higher capacity in order to secure a large sum as advance. In this transaction exigencies of business have not figured in the prosecution case but that I suppose would be part of the defence.

(2.) IN any case the Corporation has obtained a decree against the petitioner and in execution thereof have purchased the business concerns itself as stated at the bar by Mr. Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the cheating took place about six years back and the FIR has been recorded recently on 14.7.1986, I fail to see what purpose would be served to keep the petitioner incarcerated in jail even for a short time. Therefore, keeping these facts in view it is ordered that the officer arresting the petitioner shall release him on bail to his satisfaction. The petitioner is direction bound to make himself available for investigation and interrogation as and when required by the investigation officer and not dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing the same to the investigation or the Court. This petition is allowed in these terms.