CRM.M-17052 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM.M-17052 of 2009 Decided on Oct 22,2009. Mohinder Singh -- Petitioner vs. Chandigarh Administration and another --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Vikas Mor,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.D.D.Sharma,Advocate,for U.T,Chandigarh. Mr.Anil Kshetarpal,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.289 dated 19.6.2009, registered under Sections 420, 467,468,471,120-B IPC at Police Station Sector 34,Chandigarh. The complainant has alleged in the FIR that he is a N.R.I and as a member of The Nirvana Co-operative House Building (First) Society Ltd, Sector 49-B.,Chandigarh, one A category Flat No. 1833 (Ground Floor), was allotted to him on 24.11.2007. However, he found that Amrik Singh Garcha has given a General Power of Attorney to Suman Sangwan of his flat and both Suman Sangwan and the CRM.M-17052 of 2009 2 petitioner are in occupation, though the Society had allotted flat No.1802 to said Amrik Singh Garcha. Apprehending their arrest, both Suman Chaudhary and the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, in which Suman Chaudhary was granted anticipatory bail as she is permanently disabled to the extent of 80% but anticipatory bail of the petitioner was dismissed on 27.6.2009 with the following observations:- “ It is not disputed that vide letter dated 30.11.2007 Secretary of the Society Ms. Rashmi Ahuja had given a certificate that Flat No.1833 stood allotted in favour of complainant Shri Rajesh Kumar, membership No.24-A, who is a share holder of the Society. The list of allotment of flats has been placed on the record vide which Flat No. 1802 was allotted to Sh.Amrik Singh, whereas Flat No.1833 was allotted to Shri Rajesh Kumar. The petitioners are placing reliance upon the certificate issued by one Kamal Preet Singh dated 25.12.2007 vide which Smt.Suman was allotted Flat No.1833 but no material is placed on the file that earlier allotment issued in favour of complainant Shri Rajesh Goyal has been in any way withdrawn or cancelled. When Flat No. 1833 once was allotted to the complainant then it cannot be re-allotted to any other person unless earlier allotment is revoked or withdrawn. In this view of the matter Smt. Suman and her husband Mohinder Singh are not lawful allottees and they are occupying the flat in question without any legal right”. In the present bail application, notice of motion was issued and interim bail was granted to the petitioner. CRM.M-17052 of 2009 3 During the pendency of the bail application, an application was filed by Secretary of the Society with a prayer to intervene and to apprise this Court about correct facts and also to place some documents on record. The said application was allowed vide order dated 09.9.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the case of the petitioner is not different from Suman Chaudhary who has already been granted anticipatory bail as both are in occupation of said Flat No.1833 in which the petitioner has already spent Rs. 4 lacs on renovation. It is further submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and since it is a civil matter, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no more required. On the other hand, learned counsel for the U.T, Chandigarh, assisted by learned counsel for the intervener has submitted that vide letter dated 16.7.2008, Suman Chaudhary wife of the petitioner has submitted in writing that she may be allowed to continue to occupy Flat No 1833 till her own dwelling unit gets ready. It is also submitted that due to anti social activities of Amrik Singh Garcha, the Society had cancelled his membership on 08.3.2008 vide (Annexure A-2) against which Amrik Singh Garcha had filed an appeal No.15 of 2008 before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, U.T,Chandigarh, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.7.2008 vide order (Annexure A-6). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner who is CRM.M-17052 of 2009 4 apparently in illegal possession of the property of the complainant and is continuing as such on one pretext or the other. Hence, the present bail application is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Oct 22 ,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge