Sudhir Mittal, J.
1. The petitioner is the authorized signatory of a Firm in the name and style of M/s Oscar Security & Fire Service (hereinafter referred to as 'the Firm’). FIR No. 39 dated 27.03.2023 has been registered against the said Firm at Police Station Central Sector 17, Chandigarh under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B IPC.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that discharge of a bank guarantee of Rs. 35 lacs was obtained by misrepresenting the facts before the bank and by forging a letter dated 08.06.2022 in connivance with officials of the Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (CITCO). The original of the bank guarantee was also fraudulently obtained.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Firm is a service provider. It had entered into a contract dated 30.10.2018 for supply of man power to CITCO. The validity of the contract was upto 30.09.2021. After expiration of the contract the Firm was entitled to get the bank guarantee discharged. The allegations of connivance and forgery are patently false. Letter dated 08.06.2022 issued by CITCO has been received under registered post which shows that the same was infact sent by CITCO. Assuming that the allegation is correct the petitioner is willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 35 lacs by way of demand draft in favour of Registrar General of this Court during the pendency of the trial. The evidence is entirely documentary in nature and, thus, the petitioner deserves the concession of anticipatory bail.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. A.M. Punchhi, PP for U.T. Chandigarh accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and waives service.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that no reply needs to be filed and that he is prepared with the case as advance copy has already been supplied to him. Accordingly, it has been submitted that even though the contract expired on 30.09.2021 the bank guarantee remained in force till 23.01.2023. Further, an internal enquiry has been conducted by CITCO which has revealed that the petitioner connived with the officials of CITCO to obtain the original of the bank guarantee and to get letter dated 08.06.2022 issued by the Manager Accounts under the signature of one Sunil Kumar, who is not even an employee of CITCO, leave alone being the Manager Accounts. The bank guarantee could not have been released without approval of the competent authority as the said approval was never taken. The same was being retained as the CITCO has a claim in excess of Rs. 65 lacs against the Firm on account of provident fund dues etc. Proof of fraud and forgery was placed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and has been noticed by him while dismissing the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. Allegations being very serious in nature, the petitioner does not eserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
7. There is no dispute that the petitioner has executed contract of supply of man power and that the same expired on 30.09.2021. Payments of the said contract have already been released. However, the bank guarantee has not been released and the reason therefor seems to be the outstanding claims against the Firm. The same was in force till 23.01.2023 as is evident from a perusal of the original which has been seen in Court. An internal enquiry conducted by CITCO prima facie establishes connivance between the Firm and certain employees. It is also evident that Sunil Kumar who has signed letter dated 08.06.2022 is not an employee of CITCO. The said enquiry also shows that the original of the bank guarantee was obtained through fraudulent means. Thus, the only possible conclusion that can be reached is that the Firm through the petitioner has connived with officials of CITCO for release of the bank guarantee resulting into commission of forgery and fraud. These allegations are very serious in nature and, thus, even though the evidence is documentary in nature, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
8. For the same reasons, offer of deposit of Rs. 35 lacs can not be accepted. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.
