This single judge order dismissed a second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner, holding that the existing earlier dismissal on merits barred review despite a later police recommendation.
The petition for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed as it is devoid of merit and does not warrant review of the earlier order.
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.
-1-
Crl.M.No.M-34071 of 2010 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-34071 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 19, 2010
Baldev Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.O.P.Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.60507 of 2010
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.No.M-34071 of 2010
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.114, dated 26.5.2010, under Sections 201, 406, 420, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Jagraon, District Ludhiana.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
This is the second application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner-accused. Earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court on merit after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case vide order dated 6.9.2010 passed in Crl.M.No.M19126 of 2010.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was further enquired into by some other police Inspector, who made recommendation to the Senior Superintendent of Police that no case is made out against the petitioner. However, even if that is so, the same
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-34071 of 2010 (O&M)
cannot be said to be a ground for reviewing the earlier order of this Court dated 6.9.2010, vide which application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merit.
Brief allegations are that complainant Parminder Singh is Chairman of Baba Nand Singh Ji Memorial Trust (registered) Jagraon, created in the year 2001 with 11 persons as trustees. Petitioner was taken as a Member of the Trust and he was included in the eight members committee of the Trust to manage its affairs. Petitioner was to pay an amount of Rs.27 lacs to the Trust but he paid only Rs.5 lacs and gave two cheques amounting to Rs.15 lacs and Rs.7 lacs respectively, and however, both the cheques were dishonoured. Allegations against the petitioner accused was of having dishonest intention from the very beginning when he was enrolled as a Member. The meeting of the Trust was called and the Members were of the view that the present petitioner is trying to usurp the Trust and hence he was expelled from the Eight Members Committee of the Trust and he was also dismissed from the primary membership of the Trust vide resolution No.20 dated 1.2.2010. During the period the petitioner remained General Secretary, he used to manage the accounts of Jeewan Jot Nursing Institute run by the Trust. It came during investigation that during financial years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, Jeewan Jot Nursing Institute had a total income of Rs.1,21,90,000/- as a fee calculated from the students, whereas only 36 lacs were the expenses of the said Institute during the said period. However, it came during investigation that petitioner failed to account for the balance amount of Rs.85,90,000/-, which he allegedly misappropriated alongwith the co-accused.
It is a case of misappropriation of an amount of Rs.85,90,000/of the Trust. On these facts, earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused.
In view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Baldev Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
19.11.2010 meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
Crl.M.No.M-34071 of 2010 (O&M) -3-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner on a second application filed after the first was dismissed on merits.
Whether a subsequent police recommendation against the petitioner is sufficient ground to review an earlier order dismissing bail on merits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baldev Singh
State of Punjab
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
