High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/1652/2019dismissed

Gopal Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

2019-01-30Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain2 pages

-1CRM-M-1652 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-1652 of 2019 Date of Decision: 30.01.2019 Gopal Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present:- Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harpreet Multani, AAG, Punjab.

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Through instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.20 dated 07.12.2018 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Aur, SBS Nagar.

According to the prosecution, petitioner as a Manager of the HDFC Bank, taking advantage of his official position, cheated and defrauded the parents of respondent No.2 - complainant Jaswinder Kaur, by fraudulently obtaining their signatures/thumb impressions on some blank papers and opening their account for `22.00 lakh. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that, in fact, complainant has lodged the impugned FIR at the behest of one Harjit Singh with whom the petitioner was doing the business of purchasing and selling immovable property. Petitioner, apprehending that he would be involved in some case, approached this Court by way of CRM-M-39127 of 2018, wherein notice of motion was issued to the police authorities and the RAVINDER SINGH 2019.02.01 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

-2CRM-M-1652 of 2019 complainant vide order dated 07.09.2018. As soon as the police authorities came to know about the said petition, they falsely registered impugned FIR, though petitioner had not committed any fraud or cheated anyone. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposing the above submissions, contends that petitioner is involved in four more criminal cases of cheating and fraud.

Heard.

Petitioner is an habitual offender. To recover the cheated amount of `22.00 lakh and know the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner to cheat the innocent people, his custodial interrogation is required. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Dismissed.

(RAMENDRA JAIN) January 30, 2019 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2019.02.01 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document