“as Per Version of Applicant/Accused This Is His Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1139012
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnApr-29-2014
Appellant“as Per Version of Applicant/Accused This Is His
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
crm-m no.14276 of 2014 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm-m no.14276 of 2014 date of decision : 29.04.2014. chander shekhar aggarwal ...petitioner versus state of punjab ...respondent coram:- hon'ble mr.justice tejinder singh dhindsa. present: mr.navkiran singh, advocate for the petitioner. *** tejinder singh dhindsa, j. (oral) the present petition has been filed preferred under section 438 cr.p.c.praying for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case fir no.330 dated 01.11.2005, under sections 13/3/67 of gambling act, section 7/8 of lottery act and under section 420 read with section 34 of ipc, registered at police station division no.4, jalandhar. it would be apposite to take note that the bail application preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the additional sessions judge, jalandhar on 15.04.2014 at annexure p-10 while observing as under :- “as per version of applicant/accused, this is his firs.bail application under section 438 cr.p.c.and that he has not filed any other similar application before this court or any other court or any other court of law in india and in this regard he has also submitted his affidavit, but perusal of record reveals that applicant/accused had earlier filed 2nd bail application kanchan under section 438 cr.p.c.bearing no.33/2006 in this 2014.05.03 10:48 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm-m no.14276 of 2014 2 fir, which was dismissed by the court of smt. amarjot bhatti, the then learned addl. sessions judge, jalandhar vide order dated 30.01.2006. it is also mentioned in the said order that previous application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by this accused has been dismissed vide order dated 12.11.2005 by the court of mrs.rekha mittal, the then learned addl. sessions judge, jalandhar. thus, this application has been filed by applicant by concealing the fact regarding filing of earlier two bail applications and dismissal of the same. so, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, i do not consider it a fit case to grant the pre-arrest bail concession, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.”. on a specific query having been put to mr.navkiran singh, advocate learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as regards the correctness of the factual matrix noticed in the afore reproduced para in the order dated 15.04.2014, it has been conceded that two earlier bail applications had indeed been dismissed and in spite thereof the third application under section 438 cr.p.c.has been filed without disclosing the fact of dismissal of the previous two bail applications. such conduct on the part of the present petitioner needs to be deprecated. the petitioner has not been approaching the court with clean hands and as such his conduct dis-entitles him from any relief and particularly in the nature of discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. april 29, 2014. (tejinder singh dhindsa) kanchan judge kanchan 2014.05.03 10:48 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CRM-M No.14276 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.14276 of 2014 Date of Decision : 29.04.2014.

Chander Shekhar Aggarwal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

Present: Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

(Oral) The present petition has been filed preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C.praying for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.330 dated 01.11.2005, under Sections 13/3/67 of Gambling Act, Section 7/8 of Lottery Act and under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar.

It would be apposite to take note that the bail application preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 15.04.2014 at Annexure P-10 while observing as under :- “As per version of applicant/accused, this is his fiRs.bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.and that he has not filed any other similar application before this Court or any other Court or any other Court of law in India and in this regard he has also submitted his affidavit, but perusal of record reveals that applicant/accused had earlier filed 2nd bail application Kanchan under Section 438 Cr.P.C.bearing No.33/2006 in this 2014.05.03 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M No.14276 of 2014 2 FIR, which was dismissed by the Court of Smt.

Amarjot Bhatti, the then learned Addl.

Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 30.01.2006.

It is also mentioned in the said order that previous application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by this accused has been dismissed vide order dated 12.11.2005 by the Court of MRS.Rekha Mittal, the then learned Addl.

Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.

Thus, this application has been filed by applicant by concealing the fact regarding filing of earlier two bail applications and dismissal of the same.

So, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not consider it a fit case to grant the pre-arrest bail concession, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.”

.

On a specific query having been put to Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as regards the correctness of the factual matrix noticed in the afore reproduced para in the order dated 15.04.2014, it has been conceded that two earlier bail applications had indeed been dismissed and in spite thereof the third application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.has been filed without disclosing the fact of dismissal of the previous two bail applications.

Such conduct on the part of the present petitioner needs to be deprecated.

The petitioner has not been approaching the Court with clean hands and as such his conduct dis-entitles him from any relief and particularly in the nature of discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.

Present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

April 29, 2014.

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) kanchan JUDGE Kanchan 2014.05.03 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh