Legal Dictation matter from Original Judgment

 

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners were confronted with the maintainability of these petitions as their previous attempts to seek concession of pre-arrest bail had failed on all occasions on merits, but in response, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that these petitions are based upon changed circumstances, therefore, they are seeking ability indulgence of this Court once again. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, successive filing of petitions for bail are not prohibited as concession claimed relates to right to freedom contemplated by Article 21, Constitution of India, therefore, the new grounds raised in these petitions be considered for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that as per allegations the security cheque of complainant was forged to transfer a sum of Rs.2 crores from the complainant's account to the account of Mr. Arjan Mall Holding Private Ltd. and the alleged crime was committed by bank officials in connivance with the petitioners directors of the beneficiary company. It is pointed out that this transaction dated 13 December 2013 was well within the knowledge of the complainant, who voluntarily signed the instrument and the report in this regard is also in favour of the petitioners.

Learned senior counsel for petitioner Arjun has argued that after registration of the case the investigation commenced, however, during it's pendency petitioner submitted a representation against his false implication, which was marked to Superintendent of Police Headquarters, Bathinda for an inquiry, who concluded that the case has been falsely registered. He further argued that based upon the inquiry report, a cancellation report dated  09 February 2017 was submitted, but being dissatisfied with it, complainant preferred his protest petition, whereupon learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda refused to accept the cancellation report and ordered further investigation. Thereafter, the Special Investigation Team was constituted to further investigate the case, however, during the pendency of the same, petitioner Arjun had again given a representation to Director General of Police, Punjab for transfer of the investigation/inquiry and pursuant to the said request, the investigation/inquiry was transferred to Patiala with a direction that it be conducted by some senior IPS officer under the supervision of Patiala. According to him, the issue was being looked into by Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Patiala, but before its conclusion, Justice Mehtab Singh Gill Commission had sent recommendation for cancellation of FIR on 23 August 2017. Learned senior counsel argued that the petitioners have also filed petition for quashing of FIR, which is pending adjudication and a Civil Writ Petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of impugned investigation report bearing is also pending. He submits that the impugned report was referred to by DSP Bathinda in his reply filed in the present petition. He urged that in the light of all these subsequent events, this fourth petition for anticipatory bail would be maintainable and prays that the petitioner-Arjun Bhanot be granted the concession of anticipatory bail.