In an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner appeared via counsel but failed to provide instructions or appear in person on the final date of hearing. The court dismissed the petition due to the lack of petitioner's presence and instructions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. M. No.14620-M of 2010 Date of Decision:24.9.2010
Balbir Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab.
1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.220 dated 23.11.2009 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC at Police Station Division No.6, Industrial Area, Ludhiana.
As per the allegation, which have come to light after investigation, the petitioner was the owner of the property in question and he mortgaged the said property with Punjab National Bank in the year 1995. It is further alleged that he sold the said property in the year 2004 to one Reshma without clearing the loan amount. Reshma further sold it to Karama Wali in the year 2007. Then Karma Wali further sold it to the present complainant in the year 2008. Thus, the name of the present petitioner in the FIR is not relevant because the same was to be reflected only after the investigation. He is the main accused. The property was mortgaged by him. Consequently, the present petitioner is still liable to pay
Crl. M. No.14620-M of 2010
-2-
back the amount of loan taken from the bank. This amount is yet to be effected from him.
On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to seek instructions with respect to the payment of loan amount to the Bank and the interim order was ordered to be continued.
Today, the case has been called out twice since morning but no
one is present on behalf of the petitioner.
Accordingly, concession of anticipatory bail cannot be extended to the petitioner.
Dismissed.
24.9.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in the absence of counsel and without instructions on the condition of bail.
Whether the petitioner, being the main accused liable for a bank loan, satisfies the conditions for anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balbir Singh
State of Punjab
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
