CRM-M 9844 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM Nos.18022, 33845 of 2009 and CRM-M 9844 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.9.2009 Harish Kumar Mittal ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.P.S.Hundal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Dinesh Trehan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG Punjab for the State. Mr.Pawan Girdhar, Advocate for the complainant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. ( Oral) CRM No.18022 of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. CRM No.33845 of 2009 Application is dismissed. Main Case Counsel for the complainant has pointed out that at the time of issuance of notice of motion dated 16.4.2009, Sh.Deepak Sahni, counsel for the petitioner had submitted that after investigation and enquiry, the police has prepared a cancellation report. It is also pointed out that on 8.5.2009, the same counsel for the petitioner has submitted that cancellation report has been prepared but it has neither been finalised nor accepted by the higher Authorities. However, counsel for the State, on instructions received from CRM-M 9844 of 2009 -2- ASI Atar Singh, submits that statements made on 16.4.2009 as well as on 8.5.2009 on the basis of which bail was granted, were patently wrong because at no point of time, cancellation report was prepared. However, at this stage, counsel for the petitioner has argued that though the cancellation report was not prepared but atleast its cancellation was recommended. It is really strange that the petitioner is changing its previous stand even after the order of bail was obtained by making statement on 16.4.2009. In S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs and others AIR 1994 SC 853, the Supreme Court has held as under : “The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withhold a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.” Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 17.9.2009 Judge Meenu