Single judge dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., holding it non-maintainable because the petitioner did not surrender to jail authorities after the previous interim bail was vacated and regular bail was dismissed.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed as non-maintainable.
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-31420 of 2013(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-31420 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: September 24, 2013
Maan Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.R.M.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.132, dated 10.4.2012, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully.
Brief allegations are that complainant purchased land measuring 82 kanals 15 marlas from present petitioner-accused vide registered sale deed No.5464 for sale consideration of 68,27,000/- and land measuring 43 kanals 5 marlas vide registered sale deed No.7516 for sale consideration of 35,69,000/-. At the time of execution of sale deed, it was stated that the land was free from all incumbrances. The amount of sale consideration was also paid through cheques. On the basis of sale deed, mutation was also sanctioned in favour of the complainant. However, later on the mutation was cancelled as it was revealed that petitioner had taken loan of 5,00,00,000/- on 28.7.2000 from Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, Bahadurgarh, (for short HSIDC') and also taken loan of 2,40,00,000/- on 16.6.2012, i.e., total loan of 7,40,00,000/- and, however, in connivance with Halqa Patwari the said land was not shown as
Meenu 2013.09.25 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-31420 of 2013(O&M)
mortgaged with HSIDC and, however, in connivance with the revenue officials the land was shown mortgaged with Haryana Gramin Bank and no due certificate was obtained from Haryana Gramin Bank by the petitioner and the same was produced. Hence, it is a case of big fraud having been committed by petitioner not only with the complainant but also with HSIDC from whom he had taken huge loan of `7,40,00,000/-
Petitioner was arrested in this case. His regular bail application was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, on 15.6.2012. He filed regular bail application before this Court in which interim relief was granted by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 16.8.2012, which reads as under:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per OTS (One time Settlement) Scheme, 25% of the OTS amount was to be paid within one month and balance 75% was to be paid in equal quarterly instalments with effect from 30.4.2012 alongwith interest at the rate of 13.5% per annum within three years from the date of the letter dated 25.1.2012. The petitioner is in custody since 23.2.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in order to show the bona fide, a draft of `5 lacs has been prepared which is to be deposited with HSIDC. The petitioner undertakes to make the payment of the said amount of 25% in case he is released on interim bail for a period of one month to make arrangement of the same.
Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that in case no due certificate is given to respondent no.2, he has no grouse against the petitioner.
In view of the submissions by learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact that he has prepared a draft of `5 lacs which is to be deposited with HSIDC and balance 25% of OTS Scheme will be paid within one month on releasing on interim bail, the prayer of the petitioner is accepted. He is
Meenu 2013.09.25 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Crl.M.No.M-31420 of 2013(O&M)
-3-
directed to be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of trial Court on furnishing surety of amount equivalent to the amount of OTS Scheme and the order is conditional one. Adjourned to 28.9.2012.”
Thereafter on 28.9.2012, the following order was passed:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 16.8.2012, a draft amounting to 20 lacs has been deposited with the HSIDC against OTS and he undertakes to deposit remaining amount of 25% of the total amount, which comes to approximately 30 lacs within a period of 3 months and remaining amount would be deposited as per OTS within six months.
Learned counsel for respondent no.2 is also in agreement with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Adjourned to 10.1.2013.”
Again an opportunity was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 1.5.2013 and, however, the same was not complied with and hence, bail application filed by petitioner-accused was dismissed by this Court. However, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner that in case they would be in a position to arrange money, they would move fresh bail application, liberty was granted to this effect. The said order is dated 27.5.2013. After about four months of the same, the present application has been filed for anticipatory bail in the said FIR. However, in my view the same is not maintainable as petitioner had not surrendered before the jail authorities after dismissal of his regular bail application by this Court and after vacating the interim bail already granted to him.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioneraccused that during this period they had been arranging for money and that he had sold some land after taking permission from HSIDC and had also deposited `1.05 crores vide Annexure P10.
Meenu 2013.09.25 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
-4-
Crl.M.No.M-31420 of 2013(O&M)
Be that as it may, the present petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable without surrendering before the jail authorities after dismissal of his regular bail before this Court.
Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitionerMaan Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
24.9.2013
meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
Meenu 2013.09.25 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition for anticipatory bail is maintainable when the petitioner failed to surrender after dismissal of regular bail and vacation of interim bail.
Whether the petitioner's subsequent compliance with payment obligations cures the defect of non-surrender prior to filing the present anticipatory bail application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maan Singh
State of Haryana
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
