Criminal Misc. No. M-35917 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-35917 of 2011 Date of decision : December 16, 2011 Sukhpal Singh Cheema ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. SK Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Accused Sukhpal Singh Cheema has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 104 dated 27.10.2011, under sections 379, 447, 511, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sadar Sunam, District Sangrur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, petitioner's company, of which the petitioner is Director had taken loan of Rs two crores two lacs from the complainant bank and mortgaged his land with the bank. The loan has crossed over Rs four crores since the petitioner's company failed to repay the loan to the complainant bank. Accordingly, complainant bank Criminal Misc. No. M-35917 of 2011 -2- took possession of the mortgaged land under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. However, the petitioner sent his servants and other persons to take repossession of the land from the complainant party and also to take cotton crop from there. Security guards deployed by the bank reported the matter to the bank and thereupon FIR was got registered. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner himself had not gone to the spot. However, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Naib Singh, contended that one of the person who had gone to the spot namely Ramesh Yadav is servant of the petitioner. It is also contended that all the persons who were caught at the spot on interrogation disclosed that they had been sent by the petitioner to take back possession of the land. Keeping in view the serious allegations against the petitioner and all other facts and circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, in my considered opinion, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 16, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'