CRM-M No.13150 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.13150 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.11.2011 Harbhajan Singh and another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Gill, D.A.G., Punjab. Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Mr. J.S. Walia, Advocate for the complainant. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.10 dated 20.01.2011 registered under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Bathinda. The broad brush allegations are that the son of the petitioners CRM-M No.13150 of 2011 (O&M) -2- purchased the house after taking loan from a Bank. Later on the house was fraudulently sold by the petitioner to the complainant. After the said sale the son of the petitioners fled abroad. The petitioners were sought to be inculpated on the ground that they were co-borrowers alongwith their son. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners never applied for a loan and in fact their son defrauded the complainant by using the name of co-borrowers. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments in the matters of Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 540, Naresh Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2010(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 318, Laxmi Narain v. State of Haryana, 2010(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 485, Niranjan Singh and another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and another, 1980 AIR (SC) 785, I. Glaskasden Grace and others v. Inspector of Police and another, 2009(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 395, and Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, 2009(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 473. In Ravindra Saxena's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.7 has held as follows:- “We are of the considered opinion that the approach adopted by the High Court is wholly erroneous. The application for anticipatory bail has been rejected without considering the case of the appellant solely on the ground that the challan has now been presented.” In Naresh Kumar's case (supra), this Court has granted bail on the facts of the case set out before it. In Laxmi Narain's case (supra), the petitioner had joined the CRM-M No.13150 of 2011 (O&M) -3- investigation and the prosecution had stated that he was no longer required for custodial interrogation. Niranjan Singh's case (supra) relates to consideration of grant of regular bail. In I. Glaskasden Grace's case (supra), the High Court had imposed the condition that the appellants should deposit the title deeds of property worth Rs.20,00,000/- and that order was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Vaman Narain Ghiya's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while considering an application for bail, detailed discussion of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits is to be avoided. None of these cases can be said to apply on all fours. The facts in the present case are that there is some evidence that the petitioners were involved in the admitted fraud perpetrated by their son. At this stage, this Court cannot embark upon a detailed evaluation of the merits of the case. In view of the allegations against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the present is not a case where the concession of anticipatory bail can be granted. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. Nothing, stated herein, shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 11, 2011 JUDGE ashish