Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan Lal Kalia vs The State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2012
Crl. Misc. No. M- 34689 of 2011
----1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 34689 of 2011
Date of decision. 19.10.2012
Mohan Lal Kalia ....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and ors. ........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:- Mr. Narender S. Lucky,Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab
Mr. Sumit Batra, Advocate
for respondent no.2.
Mr.Parveen Kumar Garg, Advocate
for respondents no. 3 to 5.
--
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Mohan Lal Kalia, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 298 dated 04.10.2011 at Police Station Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, for an offence punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 34689 of 2011
----2--
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already repaid the loan of the bank and that only interest part is left to be paid for which application has been made by the petitioner to the bank. According to him, he would clear the same very soon. He has further submitted that he had a dispute with his wife and on account of the same, he had to transfer the plots in her name and he had no power over the acts of his wife. He has further submitted that he has joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required for investigation.
Learned State counsel with the assistance of learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that the offence committed by the petitioner is quite serious. According to him, the petitioner owned two plots measuring 125 square yards each. According to him, he availed loan on one plot from Allahabad Bank and on the other from Syndicate Bank. Thereafter, he transferred the property in favour of his wife Surinder Kaur, who entered into an agreement for sale of the plots on 06.04.2009 in favour of one Anupama Chouhan and received earnest money in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and on 24.09.2010 in favour of the complaints and received Rs.5,50,000/- as earnest money from them.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 34689 of 2011
----3--
The fact that the agreement of sale in favour of the complaints is signed by the petitioner also would show that the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that he had a dispute with his wife is wrong and that the two are working in conspiracy with each other. They appear to have committed fraud not only with the bank but also with above named private persons. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
October 19, 2012 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE