Sethi Lal v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (i) CRM No.M-4267 of 2019 (O&M) Sethi Lal
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
(ii) CRM No.M-5737 of 2019 (O&M) Lachhman Dass
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
Date of Decision: February 22, 2019
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present:
Ms.Mannat Anand, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Dhruv Dayal, Sr.DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.
Mr.C.L.Verma, Advocate for the complainant.
**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together as these have arisen from same FIR.
Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
CRM No.M-4267 of 2019 and connected petition -2for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.230 dated 29.12.2018 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Haibowal, District Ludhiana.
Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that as per prosecution version, FIR in the present case has been registered on the application of Rajni Devi. As per complainant, Nirmal Singh entered into agreement to sell with the complainant and money was paid, as per FIR, to Nirmal Singh, Gaurav and Vipan Kumar Dhir. The present petitioners have not entered into agreement to sell with the complainant. Neither they have received any money from the complainant nor they induced her to give money to Nirmal Singh etc.
Learned counsel for the complainant contended that present petitioners along with other accused have formed a gang and used to cheat people. The petitioners have already joined the investigation. Nothing is to be recovered from them. The petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation. No useful purpose will be served by sending and keeping the petitioners in custody till the disposal of the case. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where petitioners are entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, both the petitions are accepted and the order dated 30.01.2019 passed in CRM No.M-4267 of 2019 and order dated 07.02.2019 passed in CRM No.
CRM No.M-4267 of 2019 and connected petition -3of 2019 granting interim bail to the petitioners, are made absolute. February 22, 2019 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No