← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/8301/2022dismissed

Vikash v. State Of Haryana

2022-04-18Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8301-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.04.2022 VIKASH     



STATE OF HARYANA    

    

Present:

Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for the petitioner.

               !!!!

   

 Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.398 dated 27.09.2021, registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC, at Police Station Agroha, District Hisar, Haryana. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on an investigation conducted by the Economic Crime Branch, it was found that some money transaction took place between the parties and that the dispute is civil in nature, which has been given the cloak of criminal proceedings. He further submits that on 07.02.2020 a partnership firm, namely, M/s Shri Laxmi Enterprises, was formed between the petitioner and the complainant, which is valid till 31.03.2024. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner and the AMAN JAIN 2022.04.19 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M-8301-2022 (O&M) -2complainant are close relatives and that, on the pretext of providing a contract of smart cards, the petitioner took money from the complainant and one Amit; that during investigation, bank account statements of the petitioner and his wife, were taken and it was found that an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was deposited in the account of the petitioner and his coaccused, namely, Shiv Kumar and Rs.50,000/- in the account of Monika (wife of the petitioner), through Google Pay and that later on, the petitioner had refused to return the money.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The allegations against the petitioner are specific and direct. The petitioner has defrauded the complainant and one Amit and that too on the pretext of providing the complainant a contract work of smart cards. Neither the contract was provided nor the money returned. Therefore, to unearth the truth, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is a must.

In view of the above, no ground is made out to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Dismissed.

 



   

  "      

     Whether reportable :

Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2022.04.19 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document