High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/16600/2020dismissed

Palwinder Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2020-08-27Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-16600 of 2020 Date of Decision: 27.8.2020 Palwinder Kaur Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:

Mr. Jagjit Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab.

**** AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (Oral):

The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is filed aggrieved of the order dated 3.6.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar declining the prayer of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 12 dated 27.2.2020 registered under Sections 420, 167, 120-B IPC, Police Station Rajasansi.

The allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner alongwith her husband had availed Kisan Credit Card limit of 29,00,000/-. To secure the interest of the bank, 73 kanals of land was mortgaged. There was default in repayment, the due amount

was 16,00,000/- including interest. At that stage, it transpired that ownership of the land was changed in the name of Gram Panchayat in 2016, consequent to order of the Court. Knowing the said fact, the petitioner and her husband mortgaged the said land. On 26.6.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner took time to have instructions as to whether the petitioner is ready to deposit the outstanding amount. On 30.6.2020, statement was made that the petitioner is ready to deposit 8,00,000/- within one week and the balance amount on or before 7 th August, 2020. Interim bail was granted subject to deposit being made as per the statement made and the petitioner's joining the investigation. Today, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI-Rajinder Pal Singh submits that the petitioner has neither deposited a penny nor joined the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to deny the averments made by learned counsel for the State. He submits that the petitioner is still arranging for the money and needs more time.

The prayer made by the petitioner deserves rejection, considering the nature of allegations in the FIR, public money

involved and even the statement made before this Court is not honoured. The bonafides are lacking and it is not a case for grant of concession of anticipatory bail.

The petition is dismissed.

However, nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE 27.08.2020 mk