CRM-M- 9401 of 2011 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. CRM-M- 9401 of 2011 Decided on Aug 29,2011 Gulzar Chand Gill alias Gulzar Singh --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and another --Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Vivek Goel,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.A.S.Rai,DAG,Punjab Mr.Sandeep Arora.Advocate for the complainant Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This is an application for pre arrest bail in a case FIR No.2 dated 07.1.2011 registered under Sections 494,495,406,498-A and 420 IPC, at Police Station Maqsudan ,District Jalandhar. On 29.3.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner had stated before this Court that “the petitioner and other family members are ready to explore the possibility of amicable settlement of the entire dispute. Mr.Gill submits that on his oral request, the complainant may be impleaded as a party in this case”. This prayer of the petitioner was accepted by this Court and the complainant was arrayed as respondent no.2. Notice of motion was issued to the complainant on payment of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to be remitted to the newly added respondent and arrest of the petitioner was ordered to be stayed till the next date of hearing. After appearance of respondent No.2 (complainant), it was CRM-M- 9401 of 2011 2 urged by the learned counsel appearing on her behalf that they are not averse to exploring the possibility of amicable settlement of the entire dispute. Therefore, the matter was put up before the Permanent Lok Adalat of this Court where efforts were made to explore the possibility of settlement but failed. Hence the case was returned to this Court on 23.8.2011 and the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready to pay `3,00,000/- for the purpose of 'one time settlement' with respondent No. 2 but is not in a position to pay the entire amount in lump sum. He, however, submits that he would pay the entire amount in four instalments. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/ complainant prays for a short adjournment to seek instructions about the instalments. Adjourned to 29.8.2011” Learned counsel for the complainant submits that they are ready to accept `3,00,000/- as 'one time settlement' in four instalments as suggested by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, states that he would argue the case on merit. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is 71 years of age and is not involved in any other case. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that an effort has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to over reach this Court by taking the order of stay by making a statement at the initial stage that the petitioner is ready for an amicable settlement. Believing the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had issued notice of motion and stayed the arrest of the petitioner on payment of `10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Not only that, he resiled from the settlement made before the Lok Adalat but also he has resiled from the statement made on 23.8.2011 CRM-M- 9401 of 2011 3 before this Court. In view thereof, since the petitioner was granted bail only for the purpose of exploring the possibility of compromise but he has resiled, therefore, he is not entitled to enjoy the benefit of anticipatory bail. Hence, this petition is dismissed. The Registry is directed to pay the amount of ` 10,000/- (which was deposited by the petitioner in terms of the order of this Court dated 29.3.2011) to the complainant/respondent No.2 on her identification by her counsel Mr.Sandeep Arora. August 29,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge