Crl. Misc. No.M-17331 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-17331 of 2010 Date of Decision: 30.07.2010 Manbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Vikas Mor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Malik, A.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. Mr. Surender Lamba, Advocate for the complainant. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.172 dated 22.04.2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani, District Bhiwani, in the event of arrest. The petitioner had earlier filed Crl. Misc. No. Crl. Misc. No.M- 12677 of 2010 praying for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C in case FIR No.172 dated 22.04.2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani. The same was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide Order dated 25.05.2010, which reads as under :- “ After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be Crl. Misc. No.M-17331 of 2010 2 allowed to withdraw the present petition. Dismissed as withdrawn.” The second application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C has been filed after two months without their being any change in circumstances. The earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn after addressing the argument at length. It has been repeatedly held that unless and until, there is a major change of circumstances, another bail application should not be dealt unless there is a valid ground giving rise to tenable cause for bail. The present is an anticipatory bail, thus, the test would be even more stringent. The earlier anticipatory bail application was dismissed two months ago i.e. On 25.05.2010. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in the case of State of T.N. vs. S.A. Raja reported as 2005(8) Supreme Court Cases 380, held in para 9 as under :- “9. When a learned Single Judge of the same court had denied bail to the respondent for certain reasons and that order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate forum, without there being any major change of circumstances, another fresh application should not have been dealt with within a short span of time unless there were valid grounds giving rise to a tenable case for bail. Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but the repeated filing of the bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents.” The earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn after the matter was argued at length. No doubt, the principle of res-judicata does not apply but the grounds that are canvassed, cannot be re-agitated on the same grounds. There is only a limited area, in which, an accused Crl. Misc. No.M-17331 of 2010 3 who is denied bail can move a subsequent application. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel submitted that earlier he did not have the document P/4 and secondly, the co-accused is granted bail. Taking up the first argument with respect to P/4, the allegations in the present FIR are that the petitioner executed a sale deed with the intention to defraud on the basis of “Power of Attorney” that was already cancelled. The complainant, in the present case, is the widow of the brother of the present petitioner i.e she is his bhabhi. While vehemently arguing the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on document P-4 to show that the petitioner had no information that the said “Power of Attorney” was cancelled. P-4 is the report submitted by the Joint Sub Registrar, Bhiwani on the letter written by the petitioner to Tehsildar, Bhiwani. A perusal of the said document, no doubt, shows that no information by the Office was given to any party, does not mean that the petitioner had no knowledge of the cancellation of the “Power of Attorney”. In as much as, the Power of Attorney was executed on 15.08.2008 and was cancelled on 27.08.2008 and the sale deed is admittedly dated 08.04.2010. Thus, it is difficult to believe that he never got to know about the cancellation in the two years that passed. With respect to the question of bail granted to co-accused, the petitioner cannot draw comparison with his co-accused. The co-accused Partap Singh in Crl. Misc. No.M-15820 of 2010, who is stated to have been released on bail by this Court vide Order of an even date, was a witness to a sale deed entered into, wherein, Manbir Singh, the present petitioner has been identified. The identification of Manbir Singh is not in dispute. Hence, Partap Singh was released on bail on that account. In the present case, the cancelled Power of Attorney has been used to deprive a widow lady who is his deceased brother's wife. The Crl. Misc. No.M-17331 of 2010 4 allegation is that the same has been misused along with the connivance of other co-accused. The same requires thorough investigation. No concession of anticipatory bail can be granted. No merit. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 30.07.2010 JUDGE gurpreet