In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-17881 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:16.8.2010 Gurmeet Singh Dhillon .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 420, 454 and 380 Indian Penal Code. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Bhavnish Kumar, Ahlmad in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala. The case relates to theft of a Court file of a Civil Suit titled Sukhwinder Singh v. Nirmal Singh in a fraudulent manner. The complainant Bhavnish Kumar has alleged that on 11.2.2010 at about 12.25 p.m. a person came to him and stated that his Advocate Shri Achhar Kumar is to examine the case file titled Sukhwinder Singh v. Nirmal Singh which was fixed for 20.2.2010. An application for examination of the file was submitted to the complainant and the complainant was asked to take out the file. The complainant brought the file and put the application for its Cr. Misc. No.M-17881 of 2010 [2] examination in it. The file was placed aside on the table and the person who had come was asked to call his counsel. The complainant got busy in his other work. In the meantime, the person who had come turned around and called another person, namely, Buta Singh (son of the defendant-Nirmal Singh of the suit-the file of which was to be examined). The person who had come handed over the case file to Buta Singh without the permission of the complainant. The said Buta Singh on the asking of the person who had come stole the file and fled away. The complainant raised an alarm and chased the said persons but due to rush in the Court, they fled away and stole the said case file. The complainant went to the chamber of Shri Achhar Kumar, Advocate and he informed the complainant that Gurmeet Singh Dhillon (petitioner) and son of Nirmal Singh (defendant in the suit) had come to him. They after discussing their case titled Sukhwinder Singh v. Nirmal Singh had gone back. However, they got an application drafted by the said advocate for inspection of the above noted case file, but they did not thereafter come to him with the application for inspection of the file. The complainant then came back to his room. He was sure that Gurmeet Singh Dhillon (petitioner) and Buta Singh (son of the defendant Nirmal Singh in the suit) aged about 25-26 years had fled away by committing theft of the file of the case titled Sukhwinder Singh v. Nirmal Singh. The nature of the case file related to a suit for recovery regarding monetary dealings. At the time, the other staff of the Court, namely, Reeta Rani-Copyist, Surjit Kaur-Execution Clerk and Jagjit Singh-Criminal Ahlmad were present in the same room and they had witnessed the entire incident. The complainant could identify Gurmeet Singh Dhillon (petitioner) and Buta Singh if they Cr. Misc. No.M-17881 of 2010 [3] appeared before him. It was requested that legal action be taken against them. The application was submitted to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala with whom the complainant was working as Civil Ahlmad. On this, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala vide No.187 dated 9.3.2010 forwarded the same to SSP of Patiala for registering a theft case of the case file titled Sukhwinder Singh v. Nirmal Singh. On the basis of the said allegations report No.23 dated 16.3.2010 has been registered at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is being falsely implicated and he was not at Patiala on the date of the incident. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had filed one writ petition i.e. C.W.P. No.707 of 2010 titled Gurmeet Singh Dhillon v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. in this Court which was fixed for hearing on 5.2.2010. This Court had directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5 Lacs to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. by the next date of hearing i.e. 18.2.2010. A reference has been made in this regard to order dated 5.2.2010 (Annexure-P.3). The petitioner had arranged the said amount of Rs.5 Lacs from Smt. Ravinder Pal Kaur wife of Jaspinder Singh Ghuman resident of Kothi No.4, Malwa Colony, Sullar Road, Patiala and an endorsement regarding receipt of Rs.5 Lacs has been made on an agreement dated 11.2.2010. The petitioner then with the amount of Rs.5 Lacs reached the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Chandigarh at 1.00 p.m. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner was not at Patiala on the date and time of incident i.e. on 11.2.2010 at 12.25 p.m. It is submitted that the Court at Patiala is at a distance of 70/75 Kms. from Chandigarh and it takes more than one hour to Cr. Misc. No.M-17881 of 2010 [4] reach Chandigarh from Patiala. It is also submitted that father of the petitioner, namely, Sohan Singh is the real brother of Mehnga Singh, who is grand-father of Buta Singh co-accused. The petitioner is residing at Patiala whereas Buta Singh is residing in his Village Salempur Jattan and the petitioner has nothing to do with the said case. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the file was taken from the room of the Ahlmad by co- accused Buta Singh and the petitioner is said to be accompanying him. There is no offence made out against the petitioner. It is also submitted that there is a delay of 33 days in registration of the FIR, inasmuch as, the FIR in respect of the incident on 11.2.2010 was registered on 16.3.2010. Besides, it is submitted that the petitioner surrendered before the Investigating Officer on 24.5.2010 in compliance with the order passed by this Court on 9.4.2010 declining his anticipatory bail. Since the said date the petitioner is in custody. Charge-report (challan) has been filed by the Police on 7.6.2010 and the trial in the case is pending. Therefore, nothing is to be recovered, as such the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the case relates to serious allegation affecting the administration of justice. It is submitted that the case file has been taken away by the petitioner from the Ahlmad of the Court and there is no reason for the Ahlmad to falsely implicate the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The contentions of the learned counsel for the State that the Ahlmad of the Court has no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner and his co-accused Buta Singh is not devoid of merit. The petitioner came with an application for Cr. Misc. No.M-17881 of 2010 [5] inspection of the case file titled Sukhwinder Singh v. Nirmal Singh. As per the averments of the petitioner himself the father's name of the petitioner is Sohan Singh, who is the real brother of Mehnga Singh. The said Mehnga Singh is grand-father of co-accused Buta Singh. Buta Singh aforesaid is the son of Nirmal Singh. The suit of the case of which the file was stealthily taken away has been filed by Sukhwinder Singh against Nirmal Singh, father of Buta Singh. The petitioner, therefore, admittedly is cousin of Nirmal Singh-defendant in the suit. As per the allegations, the petitioner had stealthily entered the room of the Ahlmad and taken away the Court file titled Sukhwinder Singh v. Nirmal Singh by handing it over to his co- accused and nephew Buta Singh, who is the son of Nirmal Singh-defendant in the suit of the file that has been taken away. The complainant-Bhavnish Kumar immediately after the file had been taken away had gone to the chambers of Shri Achhar Kumar, Advocate and apprised him of the manner in which the case file had been taken away. It is the said Advocate who informed the complainant about the names and particulars of the petitioner and his co-accused Buta Singh. There is no reason for the Advocate Shri Achhar Kumar to state that the petitioner Gurmeet Singh Dhillon and Buta Singh had come to him on the day of the incident i.e. 11.2.2010 and that he had drafted an application for inspection of the case file on their asking but thereafter they did not come to him. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not present at the time of the incident on 11.2.2010 at 12.25 p.m. is in the nature of defence and is to be considered by the Court in case it is raised. There is no material on record to show for the present that the petitioner had reached the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. at Chandigarh at 1.00 Cr. Misc. No.M-17881 of 2010 [6] p.m. as is alleged by the petitioner. The private banks work even in the post-lunch session and it is not the case of the petitioner that it does public dealing upto 2.00 p.m. only. From the material and evidence on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner was at Chandigarh at 1.00 p.m. in connection with the deposit of Rs.5 Lacs in compliance of an order dated 5.2.2010 (Annexure-P.3) passed by this Court in CWP No.707 of 2010. The petitioner even if he was at Chandigarh at the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. on 11.2.2010 he can be there at any time. The taking away of the judicial file of the Court affects the administration of justice. The Court records are to be maintained in a sacrosanct manner and are to be protected. These are maintained primarily on good faith of the Presiding Officers, of the court-officials, the advocates and the litigating public. In case these are to be surreptitiously removed from the Courts, the administration of justice would be affected and this would have wide repercussions amongst the litigating public and the functioning of the Courts. The litigants deposit the original documents and other records in the Court being supremely confident that they would remain intact and in trust with the Court. Therefore, if such documents are allowed to be taken away then indeed the faith of the litigants would be shaken. Therefore, to maintain the pure stream of administration of justice the present is not a case which would entitle the petitioner to the grant of regular bail. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court Cr. Misc. No.M-17881 of 2010 [7] shall consider the case on the basis of evidence and material as produced before it. August 16, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*