Crl. Misc. No. M-34532 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-34532 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.12.2010 Ashish Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. DPS Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner. U.S. Dhaliwal, Addl. Advocate General Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Zirakpur, District Mohali (SAS Nagar), vide FIR No.91 dated 20th May, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no recovery has to be effected from the petitioner. From perusal of the FIR it is clear that no money was received by the petitioner (Ashish Kumar). According to him, while co-accused Neelam Singh has been allowed the concession of pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Judge, Mohali, another accused Manjit Kaur stands exonerated. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. During the course of arguments, learned counsel has also highlighted that the petitioner had suffered a serious accident which in fact is a change in circumstance and should be taken into consideration in the present petition under Section 438 Crl. Misc. No. M-34532 of 2010 2 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that the petitioner earlier preferred a petition before this court which was dismissed by a detailed order dated August 07, 2009 (Annexure P-2). Admittedly, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show how the present petition for pre-arrest bail is maintainable, particularly when there is no change of circumstance. The complaint was lodged by one Jaswant Singh who parted with Rs.40,50,000/- for purchase of a plot measuring 1000 sq. yards in Shivalik Vihar, Zirakpur. It appears that number of FIRs were registered by the police regarding fraud played on various allottees for allotment of plots in Shivalik Vihar as outlined in order dated August 07, 2009. While dismissing the said case, this court had observed as follows:- “In view of the fact that number of cases have been registered against the aforesaid company and its Directors it appears that they have duped number of persons who wanted to buy plots at Shivalik Vihar at Zirakpur. This apart at the time of notice of motion on 03.09.2008, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (A.N. Jindal, J) had directed learned counsel for the petitioners to explain as to why the plot which was agreed to be transferred vide agreement dated 20.04.2007, had not been transferred in the name of the complainant. Thereafter, time was sought by learned counsel for the petitioner on various dates to seek instructions in this regard. Almost a year has elapsed since then. Today, learned counsel prayed that the matter be heard on merits. Acceding to Crl. Misc. No. M-34532 of 2010 3 this prayer, I deemed it fit to hear the matter on merits. However, after hearing the case, I find that this petition is devoid of merit for the reasons given in the foregoing paragraphs.” No such circumstance has been brought to the notice of this court, which would warrant reconsideration of the matter for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Even Special Leave Petition preferred by him before the apex court was dismissed. Reference to the case of co-accused Neelam Singh and Manjit Kaur is misplaced. While Manjit Kaur is stated to have been exonerated by the investigating agency, Neelam Singh was granted pre-arrest bail on 20th May, 2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali i.e. prior to the order dated 7th August, 2009 passed by this court in Crl. Misc. No.19093 of 2008. Thus, there is no subsequent development in the matter which can be considered a change of circumstance in the case. Moreover, FIR was registered on 20th May, 2008 and petitioner has evaded the process of law for sufficiently long time. He is thus not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE December 17, 2010 'rajpal'