MUKESH KHULLER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS seek bail pending trial in case FIR No. 53 dated 11.6.1998 under sections 406/409/419/465/467/468/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Division No. 2, Ludhiana.

(2.) THERE is a company in the name and style of M/s Sutlej Fun Resorts Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and one Anil Sehgal, who is absconder, and Gurcharan Dass Aggarwal complainant are the Directors of the said company. The company raised a loan of Rs. 18,00,000/- from private financiers that is M/s Escorts Financiers. Anil Sehgal claims to be the Director/Chairman of the company. He is husband of the sister of the petitioners. It is alleged that Anil Sehgal opened a fake account in the name of M/s Hindustan Amusement, Noida with the Bank of Rajasthan Limited, Ludhiana on 13.10.1995. The amount of loan raised by the company was deposited by Anil Sehgal in the account with the Bank of Rajasthan Limited. From time to time, Anil Sehgal had been withdrawing the amount from the said account. Allegation against the petitioners is that Anil Sehgal in connivance with the petitioners used the amount so withdrawn for their personal benefits. It is also the case of the complainant that he had gone to USA and now he came to know about the affairs of the company and the transactions at the hands of Anil Sehgal and the petitioners.

(3.) A reading of the FIR would show that the complaint was made only against Anil Sehgal as he had been projecting himself to be the Director/Chairman of the Company. The account was opened by Anil Sehgal and on the account opening form, the photograph of Anil Sehgal is available. It has been vehemently argued that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and have been arrested only to put pressure on Anil Sehgal so that he may be available to the police. According to the learned counsel, if the investigating agency has failed in arresting Anil Sehgal, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for that. It was fairly conceded by the learned State Counsel that so far, there is no evidence available with the prosecution to connect the present petitioners with the commission of alleged crime and that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners.