Jaswinderpal Singh Riar vs State of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1714

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harsh Bunger, J.
Jaswinderpal Singh Riar – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 33203 of 2023
Decided On : 13-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu Senior, Advocate, Mr. Chandan Singh

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - Second petition seeking anticipatory bail was rejected as no substantive change in circumstances was shown; prior dismissal was based on failure to comply with settlement terms and dishonored cheque - Court underscores that new circumstances must reflect substantial changes, rather than mere assertions - Reference to judgments in Ganesh Raj and others regarding maintainability of subsequent applications. (Paras 1-12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail for FIR under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, following the dismissal of his first bail application, which cited his failure to refund the complainant despite agreements and past commitments. (Paras 1-5)

Findings of Court:
The court found that since the petitioner had not complied with settlement terms and his conduct regarding payment was not satisfactory, there was no merit for granting the second anticipatory bail petition. (Paras 10-11)

Issues: The primary issues were the maintainability of the second bail application and whether the petitioner provided sufficient new circumstances justifying a different decision than the earlier dismissal. (Paras 8, 9)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a second anticipatory bail application is only maintainable based on substantive changes in fact or law, adhering to established legal principles reflecting the need for observable changes rather than inconsequential circumstances. (Paras 8-10)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petition for anticipatory bail details. (Para 1 , 2)
2. dismissal of first bail petition. (Para 3)
3. grounds for filing a second bail petition. (Para 4)
4. non-compliance with settlement terms. (Para 6)
5. criteria for maintainability of subsequent bail applications. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
6. meritlessness of the current petition. (Para 10)
7. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 11 , 12)

Judgment

Mr. Harsh Bunger, J.

This is the second petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.204 dated 22.07.2022, under Sections 406 and 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , registered at Police Station City Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar.

2. The first bail petition (CRM-M-55771-2022) filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2023 passed by this Court, by observing as under:-

15. As per the FIR, the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell with respondent No.2/complainant-Rajinder Kaur on 05.12.2011, after accepting Rs.5 lacs in respect of one plot No.61, for total amount of Rs.14,50,500/- and the target date for sale deed was fixed for 15.02.2012. It appears that on 02.03.2012, the petitioner executed a sale deed No.12235 in favour of respondent No.2/complainant-Rajinder Kaur, after receiving the balance amount. However, when the complainant filed an application before the Tehsildar, Kharar for mutation, then it was revealed that there was no land in the concerned Khasra Nos. in the name of the petitioner. It appears that thereafter on 14.09.2014, the petitioner got entered into another agreement to sell with his other share holder-Satinder Singh, owner of GRD Infratech, in lieu of the above-said plot No.61, which suggested that another plot No.66 will be given to respondent No.2-complainant. However, even the said plot was not given. It further appears that the compromise was arrived at between the parties to the effect that the petitioner will return the amount of Rs.14,50,000/-. However, even the said compromise was not adhered to. Further, from the perusal of previous orders passed by this Court in the case in hand, it is manifest that various opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to re-pay the amount to the complainant; however, despite undertaking that the payment would be made, the petitioner had apparently failed to abide by the schedule of payment. Rather, one of the cheques i.e. Cheque no.000140, amounting to Rs.2 lacs, which was handed over to respondent No.2-complainant in the Court on 17.04.2023 and finds mention in that very order, has been dishonoured with the remarks “account blocked”.

16. The afore-said conduct of the petitioner is not above board and hence, I do not deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to him. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.”

3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking recalling of afore-said order dated 25.04.2023; however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 02.06.2023 passed by this Court, by holding as under :-

“6. I have considered the averments made in the application seeking recalling of order dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure A-1) passed by this Court and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, however, I am of the considered view that once the petition seeking anticipatory bail has been dismissed for non-compliance of the terms of settlement between the parties and even the act and conduct of applicant has not been found to be above board, the applicant now cannot seek recalling of order dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure A-1) only on the ground that now he is ready to make the payment. Permitting such a course would amount to abuse of process of law.

7. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Rajeshwari v. H.N. Jagadish reported in (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 82 has clearly held that in view of specific bar created in