AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C
praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R.
No.39 dated 12.5.2017 under sections 420, 120-B I.P.C, registered at Police
Station, Sector 49, Chandigarh.
Having heard counsel for the petitioner at length and having
perused the case paper book, this Court is of the considered view that the
instant petition merits dismissal.
Allegations against the present petitioner are that he in
purported exercise of the powers of Secretary of the Meters and Instruments
Staff Cooperative House Building Society has, on 13.4.2015, issued
documents in connivance with the President of the Society and co-accused
Jaswant Singh with regard to transfer of ownership of a dwelling unit i.e.
Flat No.3411, Sai Enclave, Sector 49-D, Chandigarh.
A factual premise that has gone unrebutted is that the Managing
Committee of the Society had been suspended on 2.12.2013 and
Administrator had been appointed.
Allegations against the petitioner would be a matter of serious
concern as to under what authority of law and competency, did he act as
Secretary of the Society and at a point of time when the Managing
Committee already stood suspended by the competent authority.
Stand taken on behalf of the petitioner that he had earlier in
point of time been working as a subordinate to co-accused Jaswant Singh,
President in Micron Instruments and as such, may have signed documents
without any ulterior motive and without knowledge, does not inspire
confidence.
That apart, perusal of the order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh declining concession of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner would show that the police file had been perused and
wherefrom it transpires that the relevant document showing transfer of
ownership i.e. on 13.4.2015 allegedly carries signatures of the present
petitioner.
Co-accused Jaswant Singh and against whom there were similar
allegations, has been declined concession of anticipatory bail by this Court
vide order dated 2.6.2017, passed in CRM No. M-20091 of 2017.
In the totality of circumstances and against the backdrop of the
allegations, this Court is not inclined to extend in favour of the petitioner
the concession of anticipatory bail.
Petition is dismissed.