Crl.M.No.M-6446 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-6446 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: March 4, 2011 Paramjit Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.J.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.11713 of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-6446 of 2011 The present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.131, dated 7.6.2009, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.5, 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 by petitioner for grant of regular bail has been dismissed. This is second application for regular bail filed by petitioner- accused. Earlier application was got dismissed as withdrawn on 24.12.2010, passed in Crl.M.No.M-30182 of 2010. Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that the present case was registered on the complaint made to Director General of Police, Chandigarh, by Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Chandigarh. Present petitioner-accused approached State Bank of Crl.M.No.M-6446 of 2011(O&M) -2- Bikaner and Jaipur for loan facility for his business on 20.3.2007 and had submitted sale deed No.6900 dated 17.6.2004 claiming to be owner of the said property. The bank after considering the documents submitted by petitioner-accused sanctioned the laon of Rs.10 lacs in his favour, which was also withdrawn by him. The property alleged to have been owned by the petitioner is also mortgaged with complainant-bank by depositing of sale-deed. However, lateron, it was revealed that petitioner-accused was not owner of the said property and rather the property was owned by somebody else and that a fake sale-deed was got prepared by petitioner-accused in connivance with co-accused and on the basis of the said fake sale-deed, he obtained loan of Rs.10 lacs from the bank. Hence, he has defrauded the bank and it would be difficult for the bank to recover the said amount of Rs.10 lacs alongwith interest from the petitioner-accused. He has failed to repay the said loan. He has also failed to offer any other security for repayment of the said loan. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that investigation of the case has been completed and challan has been filed against petitioner-accused. However, charge has not been framed so far and no witness of the prosecution has also been examined. Hence, there is no material change in the facts and circumstances of the case since the earlier application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.12.2010. While declining bail to the petitioner, learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that if he is released on bail, he is likely to temper with the prosecution evidence and likely to abscond from the court proceedings. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner -Paramjit Singh for grant of regular bail is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit, at this stage. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and efforts be made to conclude the same within six months from the next date of hearing, as it has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 17.1.2010. Crl.M.No.M-6446 of 2011(O&M) -3- Registry is directed to send copy of this order to learned trial Court by fax for strict compliance. 4.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge