(1.) This order shall dispose of the aforementioned petitions filed on behalf of Naresh Kumar Ahlawat and Poonam Puri seeking anticipatory bail in respect of FIR registered against them vide FIR No.1300 dtd. 19/9/2018 under Ss. 166, 174-A, 218, 221, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Panipat City, District Panipat.
(2.) The FIR in the present case was registered at the instance of Nitin Sharma wherein it has been alleged that he himself is an accused in FIR No.336 dtd. 28/7/2010 under Ss. 403, 405, 408, 409, 411, 467, 471, 477-A, 420, 120-B, 477 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Model Town, Panipat and that out of the four accused, three including the complainant Nitin Sharma are on bail and challan had been filed against them. It is stated therein that the complainant Nitin Sharma had been granted bail after 2 years and even the co-accused Parveen Pushkar and Rajiv Puri had been granted bail after they had remained in custody for several months. It is alleged that the fourth accused namely Poonam Puri had however been declared a proclaimed offender and her application for grant of anticipatory bail had been dismissed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is alleged therein that subsequently said Poonam Puri surrendered before the trial Court on 17/3/2018 and on the same very day, Sh. Naresh Kumar Ahlawat, DSP was present in the Court and Poonam Puri was asked to join investigation and who submitted his report shortly thereafter in the Court. It is alleged that the police however neither sought the police remand nor judicial remand of Poonam Puri, although the allegations pertained to a fraud of more than Rs.7.00 crores and consequently Poonam Puri was released on bail on the same day itself. The complainant thus alleged that the police had conspired to get Poonam Puri released on bail, although huge amount was involved in the case while co-accused had been granted bail after having spent years in jail.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that all the offences as mentioned in the FIR are bailable except for offence punishable under Sec. 174-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and that in any case offence under Sec. 174-A IPC would not be attracted in case of the petitioner-Naresh Kumar Ahlawat and at best can be said to be attracted to the case of Poonam Puri who had been declared a proclaimed offender and since even she has now been appearing before the trial Court, therefore, both the petitioners deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.