CRM-M-26556-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] CRM-M-29284-2011 :::::::::: IN TH E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM-M-26556-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:08.12.2011 Jagdev Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (2) CRM-M-29284-2011 Date of decision:08.12.2011 Guriqbal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-26556-2011. Mr. I.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-29284-2011. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. R.K.Girdhar, Advocate, for the complainant. Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This order shall dispose of two bail applications bearing CRM-M-26556-2011 titled as `Jagdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab' [for short “first petition”] and CRM-M-29284-2011 titled as `Guriqbal Singh Vs. State of Punjab' [for short “second petition”] in which the petitioners have prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.100 CRM-M-26556-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] CRM-M-29284-2011 :::::::::: dated 10.08.2011, under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short “IPC”] at Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. It is pertinent to mention here that the first petition was filed by Shri Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate and the second petition was filed by Shri I.S.Sidhu, Advocate. In the first petition, the following order was passed on 08.09.2011: “Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the property in dispute was mortgaged by Jiwan Singh to the petitioner Jagdev Singh on 14.01.1997 by way of a registered mortgage deed against a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The said mortgage has not been got redeemed so far. He further submits that lateron Guriqbal Singh had extended the mortgage after taking `60,000/-. He submits that the complainant can always redeem the property on payment of `1,00,000/-. Notice of motion to the Advocate General, Punjab for 30.09.2011. At this stage, Mr. Deepak Mehta, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the complainant. In the meantime, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail by the investigating officer on his furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction. He shall also abide by the conditions contained in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.” In terms of the aforesaid order, the petitioner in the first petition had joined the investigation and was satisfied with the stand taken by his advocate. On the adjourned date, i.e. 30.09.2011, the first petition was adjourned to 09.11.2011 and the interim order was ordered to be continued, whereas the second petition was listed on that day in which the following order was passed: “Learned counsel inter alia contends that Jagdev Singh, co-accused of the petitioner and in CRM-M-26556-2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] CRM-M-29284-2011 :::::::::: whose favour the registered mortgage deed was said to have been executed by the petitioner, has been granted interim bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. M- 26556 of 2011. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for 9.11.2011. In the meantime, in the event of his arrest, the petitioner be admitted to interim bail by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer to his satisfaction. He shall join investigation as and when required. He shall also abide by all the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. At this stage, Mr. Deepak Mehta, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the complainant.” On the adjourned date, i.e. 09.11.2011, the following order was passed in both the petitions: “The dispute in these cases is with regard to redemption of a shop measuring 12'x20' situated on GIT Road Malout, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar, which is allegedly mortgaged by one Jiwan Singh to Jagdev Singh on 14.1.1997 vide a registered mortgage deed Annexure P-4, for a sum of `40,000/-. The said mortgage was further extended by Guriqbal Singh son of said Jiwan Singh after giving a sum of `60,000/- to Jagdev Singh. The present complaint is filed by Malwinder Singh another son of Jiwan Singh, who is a NRI. It is agreed between the parties that the mortgage can be redeemed if `1,00,000/- is given by Malwinder Singh and he would hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute immediately thereafter. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that he is ready to pay `1,00,000/- to Jagdev Singh for the purpose of redemption of mortgage and prays CRM-M-26556-2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] CRM-M-29284-2011 :::::::::: that possession of the shop in question should be handed over simultaneously. Both the parties have agreed to this proposal and submitted that a date may be fixed for the said transaction. In view thereof, redemption of mortgage may be effected on 16.11.2011 and necessary documents may be placed on the record of this case. Vacant possession of the shop in question shall also be handed over to the mortgagor/complainant. List on 05.12.2011. Interim order to continue. A copy of this order be placed on the another connected matter.” On 05.12.2011, the petitioner in the first petition had changed his advocate Shri Karan Bhardwaj and had engaged Shri PKS Phoolka, Advocate. The following proceedings had been carried out in the first petition on 05.12.2011: “Shri P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate has put in appearance and stated that he is now appearing in this case as his client has taken the brief from his earlier counsel Shri Karan Bhardwaj. He further submits that he had also filed an application for placing certain documents on record along with his power of attorney but the same has not been listed. He prays for an adjournment. At this stage, Shri R.K.Girdhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, has produced certified copies of the order of the learned Court below dated 16.11.2011 and the statement of the petitioner recorded on 25.11.2011 according to which the statement made before this Court by his Advocate is not in consonance with his instructions. In view thereof, Shri Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate was called who, on appearance, submits that the CRM-M-26556-2011 (O&M) [ 5 ] CRM-M-29284-2011 :::::::::: statements on 08.09.2011 as well as on 09.11.2011 were made by him on the due instructions from his client (Jagdev Singh). He is directed to file his affidavit in this regard. Adjourned to 08.12.2011. Interim order to continue.” In terms of the aforesaid order, Shri Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate has filed his affidavit dated 08.12.2011, which is taken on record. According to the aforesaid affidavit, he had specifically asked the petitioner in the first petition (Jagdev Singh) as to whether he is ready and willing to redeem the mortgaged shop in case the payment is made to him, which was accepted by him and had stated that he is willing to vacate the premises on its redemption as he did not want to get arrested in the present case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the affidavit of Shri Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate and I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner Jagdev Singh is playing hide and seek with the Court. He had given instructions to his advocate Shri Karan Bhardwaj that he is ready and willing to redeem the property in case the payment is made and interim bail was granted to him on 08.09.2011 in terms of which he had not only joined the investigation but also did not raise any objection when the matter was listed on the adjourned date, i.e. 30.09.2011, though he was allegedly present in the Court on all the dates. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the first petition is hereby dismissed and the interim order dated 08.09.2011 granted by this Court is hereby vacated. Since the petitioner in the second petition had secured interim bail on the basis of the order passed in the first petition, therefore, the second petition is also dismissed and the interim order dated 30.09.2011 is hereby vacated. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. December 08, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge