CRM-M-28428 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-28428 of 2011 Date of Decision:17.10.2011 Gurpal Singh . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.R.S. Atwal, , Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.S. Rai, DAG, Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.116 dated 3.8.2011 under Sections 420, 465, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station City Rupnagar, District Rupnagar. On 19.9.2011, following order was passed by this Court: “On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, State Bank of Patiala (RCB) Branch, Ropar through its Branch Manager is impleaded as respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had taken loan from the Bank and is ready to repay the entire amount but in installments. Notice of motion for 3.10.2011. In the meantime, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail by the Investigation Officer on his furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction. He shall also CRM-M-28428 of 2011 - 2 - abide by the conditions contained in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.” On 03.10.2011, following order was passed: “Let fresh notice be issued to respondent No.2 for 17.10.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would deposit `40,000/- on 06.10.2011 and rest of the amount shall be deposited with the bank in installments. Let `40,000/- be deposited by the petitioner with the bank on 06.10.2011 in the meantime. Interim order to continue. ” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not deposited the aforesaid amount so far. It appears that the petitioner is intentionally avoiding the compliance of the order passed by this Court after being released on interim bail. 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. Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 17, 2011 JUDGE Vivek