HC demands explanation from Addl Sessions Judge

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 18

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked for an explanation from a senior judicial officer in a case where the main accused was granted anticipatory bail, while the concession was denied to another person accused of conspiracy.

“The Registrar-General of this court is directed to seek an explanation from the Additional Sessions Judge, who has granted anticipatory bail to the main accused and has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner against whom the charges are of conspiracy with the main accused,” Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan ordered.

The direction came on a petition filed by Mohan Singh, seeking pre-arrest bail in an cheating and forgery case where mortgaged property was sold after obtaining a no-objection certificate (NOC).

Justice Sangwan’s Bench was told during the course of hearing that the FIR was registered in August last year by a finance company with the allegation that the accused — brothers Sahil Kokcha and Laxmi Kokcha — obtained a loan of Rs 10 lakh in May 2015 by mortgaging their house. Its original sale deed was kept as security with the company and entry of mortgage was made in municipal corporation record.

Thereafter, the brothers started delaying payment of the monthly instalment of Rs 28,767. It later came to the complainant’s knowledge that the brothers had sold the house to Kirti, another accused. The mortgage endorsement was removed from municipal corporation record by way of preparing a fake NOC.

Taking up the matter, Justice Sangwan asserted that surprisingly, the Additional Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the two brothers, who were the principal loanees of the amount and were admittedly the defaulters on the date when the alleged NOC was issued.

The allegation in the FIR was that the NOC was a forged document. Subsequently, the act of the three accused persons named in the FIR in disposing of the property within three days of issuance of the NOC and removing endorsement from municipal corporation record was nothing but an act of calculated conspiracy. This was completely ignored while granting anticipatory bail to the two accused.

“Though it is the discretion of the court to grant anticipatory bail, it is a well-settled principle of law, as held by the Supreme Court, that where the offence is committed against the state or a financial institution like the complainant, even in case of compromise, the FIR may not be quashed. The order granting anticipatory bail to the two brothers does not meet the basic requirement of granting anticipatory bail,” Justice Sangwan pointed out.