Crl. Misc. No. M-25342 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-25342 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 16, 2011 Som Nath Bhalla …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Som Nath Bhalla and Tata Gulani alleging that the petitioner, on the basis of fake documents of the Company, has transferred its registration from Punjab to Delhi and removed the material from the office at Patiala to Delhi and committed violation of provisions of Section 146 of the Companies Act. Crl. Misc. No. M-25342 of 2011 [2] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had earlier lodged an FIR against Mohinder Singh alleging theft of tin sheet in the year 2008. Thereafter wife of said Mohinder Singh has lodged the present FIR. Counsel for the complainant has intervened to oppose the petition for pre-arrest bail on the ground that the petitioner having not approached the Court with clean hands and having not complied with the interim directions of this Court, should not be granted the concession of pre- arrest bail as there are chances of tampering with the evidence and leaving the limits of jurisdiction of competent authority of Patiala. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the complainant as well as State counsel and gone through the police record. The dispute appears to be regarding the business transaction of Bee Gee Potteries. In case any violation of the provisions of the Companies Act has been committed by any of the Directors or any interested party, the remedy for an aggrieved party is to either approach the Company Board or initiate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. So far as the petitioner having violated the interim direction passed by this Court is concerned, after hearing counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner had left India for America on medical grounds having suffered a brain stock. He has returned after getting treatment from America. It does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation. Crl. Misc. No. M-25342 of 2011 [3] Petition is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the following conditions:- i) The petitioner will join investigation as and when required by the police; ii) he will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner; and iii) that the petitioner will cooperate in the investigation and handover any document demanded for the fair investigation of the case. November 16, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE