1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2040 OF 2017

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 7991 OF 2017] RAHUL ARORA & ORS.                           Appellant (s)

                               VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA                         Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants approached this Court, aggrieved by the denial of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973.   The operative  portion  of  the  impugned  order  reads  as follows :-

“Perusal of the order dated 22.11.2016, passed  by  learned  Additional  Sessions Judge,  Gurgaon,  reveals  that  the petitioners had sought many adjournments on the pretext to comply with the said MoU but when the MoU was not honoured, their  pre-arrest  bail  petition  was dismissed.   Before  this  Court  also,  on the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they will abide by all the conditions and will transfer the land in the name of the minor son of the

2

complainant and petitioner No. 1, interim anticipatory  bail  was  granted  to  them vide  order  dated  6.12.2016.   But  till date,  they  have  not  complied  with  the said  order  and  time  and  again  changed their stance, therefore, the Court feels that the statement made before this Court lacked  bona  fide  and  was  made  to  gain time and mislead the Court.   

Considering the nature of allegations and the fact that they have scant regard to the order of the Court, this Court is not  inclined  to  grant  concession  of anticipatory bail to them.   

Dismissed.   However,  anything  stated  hereinabove

shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.”  

3. When the matter came up before this Court, the following order was passed on 01.11.2017 :-

“The  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners submits that given some time, he shall produce the Title Deed transferring the Farm House in favour  of  the  son  in  terms  of  the agreement......”

4. Thereafter,  on  15.11.2017,  the  following  order was passed :-

“The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has already taken steps for transfer of the property in favour of

3

the son as per the settlement, but we find that despite his statement to do the same before  this  Court  on  01.11.2017,  steps have  been  initiated  only  on  13.11.2017. Apparently,  the  petitioners  want  to prolong the matter.    

List on 28.11.2017.   The  petitioners  are  directed  to  be

personally  present  before  this  court  on that date.”

5. Today, the parties are present before this Court. It  is  submitted  that  the  property  has  been transferred and the name of the son has been entered in  the  Revenue  Records  by  way  of  registered documents.  If that be so, we permit the appellants to  approach  the  High  Court,  in  appropriate proceedings, by producing these documents, in which case, taking note of the subsequent developments, the High Court may pass appropriate orders.

6. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ AMITAVA ROY ]  

New Delhi; November 28, 2017.

4

ITEM NO.13               COURT NO.5               SECTION II-B                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)  No(s).  7991/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  13-09-2017 in CRMM No. 43110/2016 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) RAHUL ARORA & ORS.                                 Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA                               Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.106167/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.106169/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) Date : 28-11-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, AOR

Mr. Baij Nath Patel, Adv.                      For Respondent(s)                          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Leave granted.  The  appeal  is  disposed  of  in  terms  of  the  signed

non-reportable Judgment.   Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                              (RENU DIWAN)    COURT MASTER                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)