High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/32145/2020dismissed

Jimmy Mittal v. State Of Punjab

2021-02-23Mr. Justice Amol Rattan Singh8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.02.2021 Jimmy Mittal

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. S.S. Kainth, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab Mr. Rajwant Kaur, Advocate, for respondents no.2 to 4 Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral) Case heard by way of video conferencing.

By this petition, filed under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioner seeks the concession of 'anticipatory bail', upon FIR no.92, dated 21.08.2020, having been registered at Police Station Mulepur, District Fatehgarh Sahib, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406/420/201 of the IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014. On 12.10.2020, the following order had been passed:-

! "#$

%! % &%'%'! ( )

*! + " ) !

)

,'-.,%'.%'

#(! )

/ (01( 2$

3 !%'

, 4

)

-2-

)

/& 5

# ! && ! ) !

(

* ! )+6! (0!

7 8

8 9

3 1 !

! ! 8

.#8* :

)

,/&2%3 ( #

! #8 *

%'%' 1

"#$! ( ) 6 ) ! ; 1! 1 + " ) ! ) ) < ) ! ; :

!1 + " ) ! $0) 6) !

; +

! 1 + ( !

%!/ ,

%!/ ,! ! %/

%'%'= Thereafter, on 23.11.2020, the following order had been passed:-

-3- "All the cases listed today have been taken up for hearing by way of video conferencing because of the situation existing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Despite the order dated 12.10.2020, directing the petitioner to join investigation, learned State counsel submits that as per his instructions, he has joined such investigation only on 17.11.2020. Learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 and 3 submits that in fact the petitioner had issued a cheque dated 07.08.2019 for an amount of Rs.8,70,000/- drawn on the Syndicate Bank, Patiala Branch, which was dishonoured on account of an insufficient balance in the petitioners' account.

She further submits that the said respondents have a transcript/recording of the telephone conversation between the petitioner and respondents no.2 and 3, which she would place on record to show that the petitioner had in fact taken money for the purpose of sending respondents no.2 to 4 abroad.

A gazetted officer is directed to file a reply as regards the investigation carried out, keeping in view the aforesaid contentions raised. (It is to be noticed that respondent no.4 stands served of the notice issued to him but there is no representation on his behalf today at least.) If such recording is placed on record by counsel for respondents no.2 and 3, it is made clear that the onus would be on the petitioner, at least for the purpose of this petition seeking anticipatory bail, to either make good the amount of the cheques stated to have been issued by the petitioner, failing which I would see no reason to entertain this petition any further.

Naturally upon respondents no.2 and 3 filing such application, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a counter thereto if he wishes to, within a reasonable period.

Adjourned to 17.12.2020.

Interim order to continue till that date only and specifically." On 17.12.2020, an application had been filed by the counsel for respondents no.2 to 4, seeking to place on record the conversation between the petitioner and respondents no.2 and 3, with notice issued and the

-4matter adjourned to 29.01.2021. On that date, the following order had been passed:-

>;#+

>%/

%'%'! ? "All the cases listed today have been taken up for hearing by way of video conferencing because of the situation existing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Naturally upon respondents no.2 and 3 filing such application, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a counter thereto if he wishes to, within a reasonable period.

-5Adjourned to 17.12.2020.

Interim order to continue till that date only and specifically."

2$*/'--%%'%'3

! *@

4 )

) !

. %

% '

%'% #

= Thereafter, on 12.02.2021, the following order had been passed reproducing therein the earlier order passed on 29.01.2021:- 1

% '%'%'! % '

%'% ! ? 4 ) +)(

8 'A'&%'

$&!A'!'''.2 ) ! ( 3! !

) !

%'%%'% #

-6- # 8

! )

8 8

B 8 %!() ! 8

B 8 4

) ! 8

"#$ :

%/'%%'% 1 8

! 8

-7-

= Today learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, firstly, as regards the lease deed that is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner, he does not have a copy of any such deed and therefore he does not press that issue; and as regards the amount that he is willing to deposit to prove his bona fides, the petitioner can only deposit half the amount as he does not have the entire amount.

He further submits that the petitioner is only willing to deposit half the amount in court and will not pay it to the complainant, with that amount to be released to the complainant only subject to the outcome of the trial against the petitioner.

It is to be noticed again that this is a petition by which the petitioner he seeks to be admitted to 'anticipatory bail', and upon query to learned State counsel, he has submitted that in fact the matter is still being investigated, with a report under the provisions of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. not having been submitted to the competent court. That being so and looking at the entire circumstances, including the petitioner first wished to rely upon a lease deed which he cannot produce today, without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find no reason to entertain this petition any further, which is consequently dismissed, with the interim order dated 27.10.2020, granting interim bail to

-8the petitioner, hereby vacated.

Naturally, this order and the previous ones have been passed in the context of a petition filed under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and consequently nothing stated in the said orders would be taken to be a comment on the merits of the case, with the guilt/innocence of the petitioner to be established wholly on the basis of evidence gathered and led. 23.02.2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes Whether reportable: