U.T. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION Vs. ANIL RISHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed, for cancellation of bail granted to Anil Rishi, respondent, in Cr. Misc. No. 3106-M of 1994.

(2.) THE brief facts as set out in the petition and contended by counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh (petitioner herein) are that house of one Gurbaksh Singh was sold by Anil Rishi, respondent, to L.D. Gupta on the representation that he is the owner of the house. Pursuant to the agreement, respondent received earnest money of Rs. 5.5 lacs from L.D. Gupta, but thereafter, sold the same very house to Dr. Navtej Singh Dhillon and took a sum of Rs. 6.5 lacs as earnest money from him. An F.I.R. No. 35 dated 3.2.1994 under Sections 420/467/468/471 and 120-B, I.P.C. was registered against the respondent on the complaint made by Dr. Navtej Singh Dhillon and his wife, Dr. Mrs. Bhupinder Kaur Dhillon, who in their complaint have stated that respondent proclaimed himself to be owner of House No. 86, Sector 18A, Chandigarh and in good faith, they paid sum of Rs. 6.5 lacs, but later on they came to know that the house in question has already been sold, regarding which registered saledeed was made at Delhi. This Court, on an application filed by the respondent, allowed him pre-arrest bail with a direction that he shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the police and produce all the necessary documents and with a further direction not to tamper with prosecution evidence and leave the country without prior permission of the Court. In the present petition for cancellation of bail, it has been stated that since the respondent was required for taking specimen signatures and further interrogation with regard to forged documents directly linked with the offence committed, amongst other things, Tirath Singh, Sub-Inspector (Investigating Officer) of Economic Offences Wing, Sector 24, Chandigarh, served a notice under Section 160, Cr.P.C. asking the respondent to be present before him at 10 a.m. Head Constable Mohan Singh of the said Wing, went to serve the notice on 14.4.1994, but respondent refused to accept the same, Again the investigating Office served a notice upon the respondent, asking him to appear on 13.5.1994, but this time, though service was effected, yet the respondent did not appear on the date fixed. Thereafter, vide two separate notices dated 19.5.1.994 and 27.5.1994, respondent was asked to appear on 26.5.1994 and 31.5.1994 respectively, but despite that, respondent did not appear, rather openly proclaimed that he cannot be asked to do so since he has been allowed pre-arrest bail. Apart from this, it has also been stated in the petition that respondent is involved in another case, FI.R. No. 322 of 1991, in which too, respondent has committed an economic offence. Thus, it has been prayed that since the respondent has abused the concession of bail, thereby frustrating and throttling the investigation of the case, the concession of bail allowed to him by this Court be withdrawn.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record shown to me by the counsel for the petitioner (U.T.), I am of the view that respondent does not deserve that concession of bail allowed to him vide order dated 6.4.1994 passed in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 3106-M of 1994. At the time of allowing of pre-arrest bail to the respondent, it was made clear to him that he shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the police. The Investigating Officer has made many efforts, asking the respondent to appear before him for interrogation, but he has been avoiding to join the same. So much so, he did not appear before the Investigating Officer after having received and signed the summons. The allegations against the respondent are serious in nature, as it has been stated that by proclaiming himself to be owner of the house in question, he received sum of Rs. 5.50 lacs from one L.D. Gupta and another sum of Rs. 6.50 lacs from one Dr. Navtej Singh Dhillon. Respondent cannot be allowed to frustrate the progress of the investigation. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that respondent has misused the privilege of bail allowed to him by this Court.