CRM-M-26004 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-26004 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:29.08.2011 Satish Kumar . . .Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Shailendra Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a complaint case bearing No.345 dated 04.08.2008 under Section 36 read with Section 2(i), 3(1), 5(1), 21(1) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’). The petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed on 30.7.2011 with the following order: “Heard. Ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant has not produced his diary. As already mentioned in the earlier order dated 29.7.2011, it appears that even on the brief the date has been converted to 12.7.2011 from 2.7.2011. Therefore, it appears that in order to get the anticipatory bail from the Court, the date has been altered on the brief, no ground for the grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Hence the instant bail application is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that fault was on the part of the Advocate of the petitioner before the trial Court and not the petitioner, therefore, he should not be made to suffer but at the same time he did not disclose CRM-M-26004 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - as to what action has been taken against the said Advocate, who was remiss in the discharge of his duties. The learned Court below has observed that there was a concerted efforts made on behalf of the petitioner in misleading the Court. In view thereof, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) AUGUST 29, 2011 JUDGE Vivek