CRM-M 9844 of 2009 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
CRM Nos.18022, 33845 of 2009 and
CRM-M 9844 of 2009
Date of Decision: 17.9.2009
Harish Kumar Mittal
..Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab
..Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present : Mr.P.S.Hundal, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Dinesh Trehan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG Punjab for the State.
Mr.Pawan Girdhar, Advocate for the complainant.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (Oral)
CRM No.18022 of 2009
Allowed as prayed for.
CRM No.33845 of 2009
Application is dismissed.
Main Case
Counsel for the complainant has pointed out that at the time of
issuance of notice of motion dated 16.4.2009, Sh.Deepak Sahni, counsel for
the petitioner had submitted that after investigation and enquiry, the police
has prepared a cancellation report. It is also pointed out that on 8.5.2009,
the same counsel for the petitioner has submitted that cancellation report has
been prepared but it has neither been finalised nor accepted by the higher
Authorities.
However, counsel for the State, on instructions received from
CRM-M 9844 of 2009 -2-
ASI Atar Singh, submits that statements made on 16.4.2009 as well as on
8.5.2009 on the basis of which bail was granted, were patently wrong
because at no point of time, cancellation report was prepared. However, at
this stage, counsel for the petitioner has argued that though the cancellation
report was not prepared but atleast its cancellation was recommended.
It is really strange that the petitioner is changing its previous
stand even after the order of bail was obtained by making statement on
16.4.2009. In S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath
(dead) by LRs and others AIR 1994 SC 853, the Supreme Court has held
as under :
“The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice
between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come
with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person
whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the
Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the
litigation. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to
produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant
to the litigation. If he withhold a vital document in order to gain
advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing
fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.”
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I do
not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Therefore, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar Jain)
17.9.2009 Judge
Meenu