Parvesh Kumar Malhotra vs State of Punjab

M.M.S. Bedi, J.—The Petitioner had earlier filed an application for pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Sushil Aggarwal, alleging that on the basis of a forged agreement of sale, an attempt had been made by the Petitioner to grab his property by making an attempt to sell the same to Kirpal Kaur.

Taking into consideration, the conduct of the Petitioner, the petition for pre-arrest bail had been dismissed on 10.09.2011. The Petitioner neither surrendered nor joined investigation resulting in presentation of challan in absence of the Petitioner. The present petition has again been filed for the grant of pre-arrest bail relying upon the Full Bench decision in Ganesh Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, , that in case of changed circumstances, the second application for pre-arrest bail is maintainable. When confronted as to what new circumstances have come into existence, counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the challan has now been presented and the report shows that nothing is required to be recovered from anyone. On the basis of said changed circumstances, the Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail.

I have considered the contention of the counsel for the Petitioner. It is not disputed preposition of law that an application for pre-arrest bail can be filed by the same person for the second time in case he is able to satisfy the Court that the changed circumstances in his favour warrant the grant of said relief. This Court is of the considered opinion that there are no such changed circumstances and the Petitioner is not in a better position at this stage than at the stage where he stood on 10.08.2010, when his earlier application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed. A person who has been able to evade investigation proceedings, his arrest and joining of investigation, cannot claim subsequently that on presentation of challan nothing is to be recovered and that he is in a better position to seek the concession of pre-arrest bail.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Investigating Officer Waryam Singh, has played mischief in this case as he himself was interested in the property of the complainant. The Petitioner being property dealer did not help him and as a result of which he has been falsely involved in the present case.

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that a great prejudice will be caused to the Petitioner in case he is sent to police custody under the said Investigating Officer who has allegedly falsely involved the Petitioner. I do not find any force in the said contention. The Petitioner could appear before the Illaqua Magistrate and raised the said plea to seek the concession of regular bail. This plea has been taken for the first time in this second application for pre-arrest bail.

No ground is made out to entertain this second application for pre-arrest bail.

Dismissed. In case Petitioner surrenders before the Illaqua Magistrate and seeks the concession of regular bail, it will be open to the Investigating Agency to oppose the same.