Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ujwal Zombade And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 May, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.M-14038 of 2014 & other case 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CRM No.M-14038 of 2014
Ujwal Zombade and others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
(2) CRM No.M-16072 of 2014
S.S.Zombade and another .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
Date of Decision:27.05.2014
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.G.S.Gopera, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr.H.S.Deol, Additional Advocate General, Haryana,
for the respondent-State.
Mr.V.K.Sachdeva, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) As, identical points for consideration to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated petitions bearing CRM No.M-14038 of 2014, titled as Ujwal Zombade and others Versus State of Haryana and others(for brevity "the 1st case") and CRM No.M-16072 of 2014, titled as S.S.Zombade and another Versus State of Haryana and others(for short "the 2nd case"), arising out of the same FIR/case, by way of this common order, to avoid the repetition of facts.
2. The petitioners have preferred the instant separate petitions Rani Seema 2014.05.28 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-14038 of 2014 & other case 2 for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.560 dated 01.06.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 464, 465 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station City Karnal.
3. Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.
5. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on 25.04.2014 in the 1st petition:-
"Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that initially Poshak Agrivet Pvt. Ltd. Company was promoted by the petitioners, Dr.S.S.Zombade and Jagdeep Singh, husband of local MLA of Karnal. Subsequently, they mutually agreed to separate the business and the pointed company had fallen to the share of petitioners vide Arbitration Award dated 10.05.2010. However, Jagdeep Singh did not hand over the possession to the petitioners. The contention is that then they filed civil writ petition bearing No.18105 of 2010 and this Court has specifically directed the opposite side to restore the possession of the factory premises back to the petitioners, by virtue of order dated 18.10.2011(Annexure P-1). Not only that, even this Court has directed the SP, Karnal to ensure that the possession of the company is physically handed over to the petitioners, by means of order dated 04.11.2011(Annexure P-2).
The argument further proceeds that instead of complying the directions of this Court and delivering the physical possession of the company to the petitioners, they have been falsely implicated by the complainants, who are henchman of Jagdeep Singh, husband of local MLA, in order to wreak vengeance. As the dispute is purely of a civil nature, therefore, no indicated offences are made out against the petitioners in this relevant connection.
Heard.
Notice of motion be issued to the respondents, returnable for Rani Seema 2014.05.28 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-14038 of 2014 & other case 3 16.05.2014.
Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to his satisfaction."
Sequelly, similar order was passed by this Court on 15.05.2014 in the 2nd petition.
6. At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Shiv Charan, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. Moreover, the dispute appears to be purely of a civil nature. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Since, even the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report(challan) against the accused, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time
7. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petitions for anticipatory bail are hereby accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners by means of order dated 25.04.2014(in the 1st petition) and order dated 15.05.2014(in the 2nd petition) by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, Shradha Zombade, petitioner No.3 in the 1st petition is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the investigating agency.
Rani Seema2014.05.28 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-14038 of 2014 & other case 4
Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail in this Court, in this respect.
May 27, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
Rani Seema
2014.05.28 16:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh