CRM-M-14511-2010 (O&M) [ 1 ] ::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14511-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:05.10.2011 Lachhman Dass Mahant and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. J.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the complainant. **** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.136 dated 23.09.2008, under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana. Earlier, the petitioners alongwith two other co-accused had applied for pre-arrest bail vide CRM-M-26757-2008 which was dismissed on 18.08.2009 with the following order: “The petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.136 dated 23.09.2008 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station, Raikot, District Ludhiana (Rural). The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of one Satish Kumar Gupta in which it has been alleged that Lachhman Dass Mahant CRM-M-14511-2010 (O&M) [ 2 ] ::::::: (petitioner No.2) Ex-President of S.G.G. Senior Secondary School, Goindwal, Tehsil Raikot, misappropriated more than Rs.70 lacs, Surinder Singla (petitioner No.1), Ex.Secretary, misappropriated more than Rs.2 lacs, Ex-Member Varinder Jain (petitioner No.4) misappropriated more than Rs.50,000/- and Ex-Member Manjit Kaur (petitioner No.3) misappropriated more than Rs.45,000/-. It was also alleged that Lachhman Dass Mahant (petitioner No.2) had embezzled FDRs of more than Rs.37,23,000/-. Apprehending their arrest in the aforesaid FIR, the petitioners had applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, which was dismissed on 10.10.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as per Annexure P-1, the petitioners are the members of the Managing Committee. It is further submitted that the complainant Satish Kumar Gupta is only a manager of the school and has no locus standi to register the present FIR which has been registered as a counter blast to FIR No.132 dated 21.09.2008, under Sections 420, 406, 447, 511, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana, against the complainant and others. It is further submitted that the petitioners are on interim bail and have already joined the investigation. As against this, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the FIR registered by the petitioners is not a counter blast to the FIR registered by the complainant vide FIR No.132 aforesaid because the complaint was made to the police on 24.04.2008 by the complainant against the petitioners in which an enquiry was conducted and it has been found in the enquiry, CRM-M-14511-2010 (O&M) [ 3 ] ::::::: which includes the records of the bank, that Lachhman Dass Mahant (petitioner no.2) prepared fake receipts of FDR worth Rs.37,23,000/- in the name of the School, but as per the record of the bank, there is no such FDR in the name of the School. It was also enquired into as per the report of C.A. that for the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005, an amount of more than Rs. Two Lacs is due from Surinder Singla (petitioner No.1) and Rs.50,000/- from Varinder Jain (petitioner No.4). Learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that on the basis of the complaint dated 24.04.2008, FIR was registered on 23.09.2008 which cannot be considered to be a counter blast to the FIR No.132 dated 21.09.2008. It is further submitted by him that huge amount has been embezzled by the petitioners which is yet to be recovered. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the recovery is yet to be effected, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby dismissed. Nothing stated in this order shall be taken to be an expression of opinion on merit of the case.” Two of the co-accused of the petitioners had filed SLP (Crl.) No.7105 of 2009 and SLP (Crl.) No.7977 of 2009 which were allowed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 09.11.2009 subject to deposit of the amount of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.53,000/- respectively, which were allegedly recoverable from them. The petitioners did not file SLP before the Apex Court and had rather filed Bail Application No.177 dated 18.03.2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in which it was alleged that on their representation, an inquiry was ordered by the SSP, Ludhiana (Rural) in which they have been exonerated, but CRM-M-14511-2010 (O&M) [ 4 ] ::::::: the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide its order dated 30.03.2010 dismissed their bail application while observing that “this is second bail application preferred on the strength of a fact that enquiry has gone in their favour. However, a fact stands that the SSP, Ludhiana (Rural) while dis-agreeing with the enquiry report submitted by the then Investigating Officer handed over the investigation to DSP Raikot. No finality can be attached to the finding arrived at by one Investigating Officer as the investigation is still going on by a senior officer than him. Hence, I do not see any cogent ground to grant benefit of pre-arrest bail to the accused at this stage of the case.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the changed circumstance to file the second bail application is that the petitioners' counsel who had argued the first bail application before this Court could not bring to the notice of the Court that the amount of Rs.37,23,000/-, which was allegedly accepted by petitioner No.1 and the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which was allegedly accepted by petitioner no.2 is already lying in the bank account. He has further referred to the inquiry allegedly conducted by the SSP, Ludhiana (Rural) in support of his case. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the second bail application without there being a change of circumstance is not maintainable. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan and others, 2005(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 30, a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Maya Rani Guin and etc. v. State of West Bengal, 2003(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 774 and a decision of this Court in the case of Dalip Singh alias Deepa v. State of Punjab, 2010(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 566. He has also submitted that if the petitioners were aggrieved against the order of this Court passed in the first bail application, then they could have easily approach the Apex Court in the same manner in which the other two co-accused had approached and would have been released on bail subject to deposit of the amount which was allegedly accepted by them but as the amount involved in the case of the petitioners is much more, therefore, they did not approach the Apex Court. He further submits that the amount which is allegedly deposited in the FDR has not been found by the bank as per the certificate issued by the bank. CRM-M-14511-2010 (O&M) [ 5 ] ::::::: I have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail and I am of the view that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail as there is no change in circumstance as projected by learned counsel for the petitioners. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. October 05, 2011 ( Rakesh Kumar Jain ) RR/vinod* Judge