Harish Mehta vs Malkeet Singh and Another

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Harish Mehta, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case brought by way of complaint by Malkeet Singh, respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and others for an offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 472, 420 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had himself sold his truck to Randhir Singh and executed a receipt for the price of the same in a sum of Rs. 70,000/-on 14.6.2003. He referred me in this regard to Annexure P1, the receipt. According to him, the petitioner has no concern with the said transaction. He has further submitted that Malkeet Singh filed an application for superdari of the truck but the said application was dismissed by the court and the revision filed by him was also dismissed. According to him, in the application for superdari, respondent No. 1 claimed that the petitioner is a financier from whom he took a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac and while obtaining the said facility, the financier got some blank papers signed from him. According to him, the receipt is said to have been prepared on one of those papers. He has submitted that after disposal of his application for superdari and the revision petition, respondent No. 1 has lodged this report. According to him, the receipt is on a printed proforma and there is no allegation of respondent No. 1 that his signatures were obtained by the petitioner on any such proforma.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner obtained the signatures of Malkeet Singh on blank papers and on one of them, receipt Annexure P1 has been created. According to him, respondent No. 1 had paid the entire amount he obtained from the petitioner and the petitioner being the money lender has played a trick by creating receipt Annexure P1 of sale of truck in favour of Randhir Singh. He has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

The first circumstances to be taken into account is that the case has been brought by way of complaint and so it is not a case where custody of the petitioner may be required for the purpose of investigation. There are allegations and counter allegations in the case by both the parties justifying their stand. The parties would have to lead evidence to prove their respective stands. Annexure P1 is not there on a blank paper but it is on a printed proforma of receipt, which has got some blanks for filling the particulars of the transaction. In the application for superdari, there was no such plea that any such proforma was got signed from him by the petitioner. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I find the petitioner to be entitled to bail. Hence, the petition is allowed and the order dated 21.2.2012 passed by this court is made absolute.