Criminal Misc.-M No. 13309 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 13309 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 17.10.2011 Shashi Bala and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the complainant. …… RAJESH BINDAL, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners are that petitioner No.1 had raised a loan of ` 40,00,000/- from the Bank by mortgaging the property owned by her. Part of the property was sold with permission of the Bank. For part of the same power of attorney was executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.2, her husband. He agreed to sell the same to one Pankaj Vashisht on 7.4.2008. Pankaj Vashisht on the strength of agreement to sell executed in his favour, had sold the same to the complainant. As the loan of the Bank had not been cleared, the property in question was attached and proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were initiated. It is only on receipt of notice from the Bank that the complainant came to know about the charge on the property. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the permission granted by the Bank, petitioner No.1 had sold part of the land and deposited the consideration money with the Bank. For clearing the balance loan amount, she executed power of attorney in favour of petitioner No.2. It is submitted that the land has been sold by the person, in whose favour Criminal Misc.-M No. 13309 of 2011 2 petitioner No.2 had executed power of attorney. Sale consideration was also not paid to petitioner No.1 and in fact, she had also been cheated. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as complainant submitted that the petitioners in the present case are husband and wife. They in connivance with each other have not only cheated the complainant but also the Bank. Property in question was mortgaged for raising a loan from the Bank but the same was sold. The Bank informed the complainant that a sum of ` 83,34,200/- are due from petitioner No.1. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioners are not entitled to pre-arrest bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made where the property, which was mortgaged by petitioner No.1 with the Bank to secure the loan, was sold by petitioner No.2, her husband on the basis of power of attorney executed by her in his favour without clearing the loan amount of Bank, in my opinion, the petitioners do not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 17.10.2011 sharmila