High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/1843/2022disposed of

Rajveer Banth And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another

2022-02-22Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan3 pages

102+239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH *** Decided on: 22nd February, 2022 Rajveer Banth and others Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:

Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the applicant/ respondent No.2. **** AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (Oral):

CRM-6390-2022:

This application is filed for placing on record reply on behalf of respondent No. 2.

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. Reply on behalf of respondent No. 2 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

Main case:

This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 75, dated 15th May, 2021 under Sections 420 IPC (Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC and 120-B IPC were

added later on) registered at Police Station Kathgarh, District SBS Nagar.

The petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail on 18th January, 2022.

Learned State counsel on instructions from S.I. Husan Lal submits that petitioner joined investigation and his custody is not required.

The Court is informed that petitioner has handed over demand draft of Rs. 8,10,000/- to the complainant. Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate puts an appearance on behalf of the complainant. He submits that petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short 'the Act'] and the said fact was not disclosed in the petition. It is further submitted that petitioner is involved in one more FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced order dated 23rd December, 2021. He submits that petitioner was not aware of the proceedings under the Act, on gaining knowledge, the petitioner surrendered before the Court concerned and was granted bail. At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant submits that certain recoveries are yet to be made from the petitioner. Learned State counsel reiterates that no recovery is to be made.

In view of statement made by learned State counsel that

custody of the petitioner is not required, the interim bail granted on 18th January, 2022 is made absolute.

The petition is disposed of.

[AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE 22nd February, 2022

1. Whether speaking/ reasoned :

Yes /No

2. Whether reportable :

Yes /No