Criminal Misc. No. 55259-M of 2007 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 55259-M of 2007 Date of decision : February 15, 2008 Pardeep Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B.S.Guliani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL J. This petition was entertained during the short spell of winter vacation. The same was filed on December 31, 2007 and on request of the counsel was listed on the same day as the prayer was for pre-arrest bail. At the time of hearing of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on merits and considering the same, this Court issued notice of motion and granted interim relief. The factum of pendency of the petition already filed by the petitioner for the same relief before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana was not disclosed at the time of arguments. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that in view of the parallel remedy being availed of by the petitioner before this Court for the same relief, learned Additional Sessions Judge had dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner on January 4, 2008. In response thereto at the time of hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had placed the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana issuing notice in the bail application filed by him on record, however, the same was not referred to at the time of initial hearing. This Court did not have the opportunity to go through the petition in advance as the same was filed and taken up during vacation on the same day. Criminal Misc. No. 55259-M of 2007 -2- *** Once the petition was already pending before the Court below and notice had been issued for January 4, 2008, this Court would not have interfered in the matter merely on December 31, 2007. Keeping in view the above facts where the petitioner did not disclose complete facts at the time of hearing of the petition especially when the matter was being taken up during the vacation on the same day, I do not deem it appropriate to grant any relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. February 15, 2008 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge