High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/4008/2020allowed

Parveen @ Laddi And Another v. State Of Haryana

2020-06-10Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M- 4008-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 10.06.2020 Parveen @ Laddi and another ... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Navneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.S.Sullar, DAG, Punjab.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J .

1. The petitioners seek grant of regular bail in a case registered against them vide FIR No.235 dated 30.11.2019 under Sections 420/120B/419/465/467/468/471 IPC at Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa.

2. The FIR was registered at the instance of Buta Singh wherein it has been alleged that he has been duped of an amount of ` 56,000/- by the accused on the pretext of advancing loan to him. It is alleged that the accused projected that they were running a company by the name of 'Capital Finance Group Limited' and while holding out a representation of advancement of loan asked him to deposit several amounts towards advance instalments, tax etc.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case and are not named anywhere in the FIR and have been nominated as accused on the basis of alleged scientific evidence in the shape of Whatsapp conversation etc. The learned KAMAL KUMAR 2020.06.10 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-4008-2020 (O&M) counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in any case since two of the accused namely Dalwinder Singh and Sunil Kumar have already been granted bail by this Court, the petitioners deserve the concession of bail on the ground of parity as well.

4. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that since the police has been able to zero-in on the petitioners on the basis of scientific evidence showing their complicity, no case for grant of bail is made out. It has, however, been informed that the petitioners have been behind bars since the last about 6 months and that till date not even a single prosecution witness out of the cited 30 prosecution witnesses has been examined.

5. I have considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court.

6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the amount involved in the present case, which is stated to be about ` 56,000/- and that two of the co-accused have already been granted bail, further detention of the petitioners will not serve any useful purpose especially since the trial is yet to commence and as many as 30 prosecution witnesses have been cited.

7. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

10.06.2020 (Gurvinder Singh Gill) kamal Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No KAMAL KUMAR 2020.06.10 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document