The professional standard expected of a lawyer was a key legal principle established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.351 dated 05.10.2021 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/506/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Nangal Chaudhri, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the present petitioner was not named in the FIR and primary allegation had been levelled against Zile Singh, who was stated to have taken a loan from Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Nangal Chaudhary in theyear 2019 for an amount of Rs.2,28,000/- and had executed a mortgage deed. It is further submitted that neither there is any allegation against the said Zile Singh that he had not been regularly paying the installments nor the bank had filed any complaint against the said Zile Singh. It is argued that in fact, the said Zile Singh had filed a petition for grant of anticipatory bail i.e. CRM-M-47050-2021 and this Court, on 29.11.2021, had allowed the same on the conditions that an amount of Rs.2,28,000/-which was stated to have been taken as a loan by the said Zile Singh should be returned within a period of one week from the date of passing of the order dated 29.11.2021.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a document dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure P-12) which is a receipt issued by the Manager Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank to show that the entire loan has been repaid and there is no due pending against the said Zile Singh. It is submitted that Jagdish, who is the complainant in the present case, was a co-sharer in the land in question and had filed the present complaint on the allegations that the mortgage deed which had been executed was with respect to land measuring 24 kanals 18 marlas whereas, the ownership of the petitioner alongwith his brother is lesser than the said land. It is also argued that there were several disputes between the said Zile Singh and the complainant, which are pending and in one such case i.e. Civil Suit No.226 of 2019, status quo order was also passed. It is contended that as far as the petitioner is concerned, it has been alleged that the report given by the petitioner as a counsel for Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, was not acorrect report. It has further been contended that the petitioner had prepared and given the report to the best of his ability and according to the documents which were provided to him without any mens rea to accord any undue advantage or benefit to anyone. It is argued that even in case, there is any discrepancy, that cannot ipso facto lead to a conclusion about the complicity of the petitioner of any act done by him on professional front. It is further argued that no amount is due towards the petitioner or co-accused persons as the entire amount has been repaid and other accused in the present case i.e. Zile Singh, Chunni Lal and Rameshwar have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court and by the Additional Sessions Judge, respectively and even Kaptan Singh has also been granted the concession of bail. He has relied upon the judgment dated 21.09.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1460 of 2012 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation. Hyderabad Vs. K Narayana Rao.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On advance notice, Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the State and has submitted that he is fully prepared to argue the matter and assist this Court. He has opposed the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and has submitted that apart from Zile Singh, it was also on account of the wrong report given by the petitioner, who was the Panel Advocate for Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, on the basis of which, the loan amounting to Rs.2,28,000/- was given to Zile Singh and Kaptan Singh. The otherfactual averments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, have not been disputed by the learned State Counsel.

6. This Court has h