JUDGMENT 1. -This bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30.11.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 373/2013 in the matter arising out of FIR No. 126/2012 registered at Police Station, Khetri Nagar for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: "Smt. Sarita Yadav W/o Karan Singh filed a complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khetri, inter-alia to the effect that (i) Rohitash Saini, (ii) Dayanand Saini, (iii) Ram Niwas Saini, (iv) Ranvir Singh, (v) H.S. Negi and (vi) Surendra Kumar, being Directors, started a Company under the name and style of Nilgiri Forest Limited, the registered office of which is at Panchkula, Haryana and they opened branches of the said Company at Hissar, Bhiwani, Rewari and other cities. After opening the branches, the accused persons made publicity of the said company after going from village to village.The accused persons showed the papers of the company and said that they were getting higher profits, as such they were giving higher rate of interest. They allured to become member of the company. It was also stated that in the banks and post offices, the money becomes double in 7 years, while this company will pay the double amount in 3½ years i.e. in 42 months and money will be 4 times in 84 months. The complainant relied upon the accused persons and coming to the office of the company situated at Gothda, deposited Rs. 50,000/- on 31.12.1997. The accused persons prepared Fixed Deposit(s) and gave it to them. The Fixed Deposit(s) was issued under the signatures of accused no.1 Rohitash Saini and using the rubber stamp showing his name, designation etc. Before due date of maturity of the F.D., the accused persons closed the company with a view to grab the people's money and kept on assuring that their money will be paid back, which was said to be held up in other cities. In this manner, the accused persons in the name of the company gave false assurances and then embezzled the said money. On the basis of a fore said report, the First Information Report No. 126/2012 was registered at Police Station, Khetri Nagar for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. In this manner, the accused persons in the name of the company gave false assurances and then embezzled the said money. On the basis of a fore said report, the First Information Report No. 126/2012 was registered at Police Station, Khetri Nagar for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. During the course of investigation, the accused petitioner was arrested on 17.11.2013 and since then he is in judicial custody. Thereafter the petitioner moved the bail application under Section 437 CrPC before the Court of Magistrate, which was dismissed. Thereafter he approached the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri by way of filing bail application under Section 439 CrPC, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 30th November, 2013. Thereafter the petitioner has submitted this bail application under Section 439 CrPC before this Court against the order dated 30th November, 2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr. Ravindra Saini have contended that in this case, challan against one of the co-accused persons Rohitash Saini has been filed only for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 4, 5 and 6 of Chit Fund Scheme and Money Laundering Prohibition Act. Learned counsel have further contended that accused petitioner was nominated as Director of the said Company on 21st October, 1992 and he resigned from the post on 24th January, 1993 and the same was accepted by the Board of the Company on 26th January, 1993. They have further contended that accused petitioner remained in the Books of Accounts as Director only for a period of 3 months' and that too much earlier to the date when the complainant is alleged to have deposited the money with the company. They have further contended that it is clear from the complaint that the money was deposited in the company on 31st December, 1997, while resignation of the accused petitioner had already been accepted on 26th January, 1993. They have further contended that Sr. Superintendent of Police, Rewari had filed an affidavit alongwith the status report in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cr. Misc. Case No. 39032 of 2012 on 5th January, 2013. In that case, the accused petitioner was made respondent no.8. They have further contended that Sr. Superintendent of Police, Rewari had filed an affidavit alongwith the status report in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cr. Misc. Case No. 39032 of 2012 on 5th January, 2013. In that case, the accused petitioner was made respondent no.8. The police had conducted investigation in the office of the Registrar of Companies, Haryana about the status of the various accused persons and it was reported that nothing incriminating had surfaced against him. Further, they have drawn the attention of this Court towards Section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956. They have further contended that in another case No. M-22752 of 2011, Shri Jai Prakash, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hansi had also submitted an affidavit before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein he affirmed that the accused petitioner after resignation in the year 1993, had no concern with the business. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, no case is made out against the accused petitioner in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. They have further contended that the complainant has also filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnol regarding the same transaction of Rs. 50,000/-. They have further contended that in this complaint filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the judgment has been passed that the complainant deposited the sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the branch office of the company at Rewari Road, Narnaul, as such the FIR and statement made therein regarding depositing of the money at Gothda, Khetri Nagar office of the company, are absolutely false and they are with ulterior motive. They have further contended that accused petitioner is an Advocate by profession and he has conducted many cases against the aforesaid company, as such he has been falsely implicated in this case. They have further contended that as per the Companies Act, in such cases, it is only the company, which is liable and even the Director cannot be held responsible more particularly when the Company has received the money and failed to repay the same, hence the bail application of the petitioner should be accepted and the petitioner should be enlarged on bail. 4. The Investigating Officer of the Case Mr. Mohan Lal Poshwal is present along-with the case diary. 5. 4. The Investigating Officer of the Case Mr. Mohan Lal Poshwal is present along-with the case diary. 5. Learned PP appearing for the State assisted by Mr. Hukum Chand Saini have vehemently opposed the bail application. They have contended that Investigating Officer has received the list of office bearers of the company, in which it is indicated that still the accused petitioner is the Director of the Company and accused petitioner has prepared the document falsely regarding his resignation from the aforesaid company. It is not the fact and people are not known about this fact. In this matter, the accused petitioner along-with co-accused persons have formed a forged company and obtained crores of rupees by giving allurement that the company will double the amount in 3½ years i.e.in 42 months and money will be four times in 84 months. They have also contended that in this manner, the accused petitioner has committed the forgery and criminal breach of trust with the innocent persons. They have further contended that in this case, the investigation is still going on. 6. The investigating Officer, who is present in person, has also supported the version of learned PP assisted by counsel for the complainant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the findings arrived at by the learned trial court in his order dated 30.11.2013 are found to be just and apposite. 9. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the findings arrived at by the learned trial court in his order dated 30.11.2013 are found to be just and apposite. 9. The relevant part of the order dated 30.11.2013 reads as under: " dSl Mk;jh esa miyC/k lkexzh ls izFken`"V;k ;g tkfgj gksrk gS fd uhyfxjh QksjsLV fyfeVsM dEiuh ftldk eq[; vkWfQl iapdqyk gfj;k.kk esa fLFkr FkkA mDr dEiuh vke turk ls vius ;gka maph C;kt njksa ij jkf'k tek djkus gsrq izyksHku fn;k rFkk viuh dEiuh ds vkWfQl fofHkUu LFkkuksa ij fnYyh] ( gfj;k.kk ) ] mRrjizns'k] jktLFkku ds 'kgjksa esa [kksysA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr lEcfU/kr dEiuh dk Mk;jsDVj gksuk izdV gksrk gSA mDr dEiuh }kjk yksxksa ls jkf'k 42 ekg esa nqxqus vkSj 84 ekg esa pkSxqus gksus dk izyksHku nsdj vius ;gka ,tsUVksa ds ek/;e ls jkf'k tek djkdj dEiuh dh vksj ls lEcfU/kr O;fDr;ksa dks ,Q0Mh0 izi= iznku fd;k x;kA fu/kkZfjr vof/k ls igys gh yksxksa dh jkf'k ysdj dEiuh Qjkj gks xbZ rFkk viuk dk;Z cUn dj fn;kA fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks jkf'k ugha ykSVkbZ xbZA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ftldk ;g rdZ gS fd og lEcfU/kr dEiuh dk orZeku esa Mk;jsDVj ugha jgk rFkk mlus R;kxi= ns fn;k FkkA ysfdu iqfyl }kjk ladfyr dh xbZ lkexzh ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd dEiuh ds jftLV~kj ds ;gka ntZ izi=ksa esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr Mk;jsDVj ds in ij lEcfU/kr dEiuh dk orZeku esa Hkh gksuk izdV gksrk gSA bl izdze ij tcfd izdj.k vHkh vUos"k.k ds Lrj ij gS] ;g fu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk vius lgvfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk feydj ifjoknh o vke turk ds lkFk Ny dkfjr fd;k tkuk izdV gksrk gSA orZeku esa Hkkjr esa bl rjg dh vU; fpVQ.M dEifu;ka vke turk ds djksMksa :i;s ysdj ykirk gks xbZA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr mijksDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ds rF; i`Fkd gksus ls gLrxr ekeys esa muls izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks dksbZ enn ugha feyrh gSA bl izdj.k ds rF;ksa@ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, o vijk/k dh i`dfr rFkk xaHkhjrk dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, eSa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks tekur dh lqfo/kk fn;k tkuk mfpr ugha ikrk gWawA " 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I do not think it proper to accept the bail application of the petitioner and the same being bereft of any merit, deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 11. However, the petitioner is free to move the bail application before the trial court after filing of the challan.Application dismissed. *******