← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/6503/2019dismissed

Surinder Kumar @ Surender Dhanda v. State Of Haryana

2019-02-22Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

CRM-M-6503 of 2019 #1#

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6503 of 2019 Date of Decision: 22.2.2019 Surinder Kumar @ Surender Dhanda ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

Present:

Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J Prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.28 dated 10.1.2019 under Sections 406/420/506 & 34 IPC registered at P.S Civil Lines, Karnal.

The FIR has been lodged on the complaint of one Shamsher Singh son of Ram Swarup wherein he states that he knew the petitioner and Naresh Dhanda. He met them at The Tribune Chowk, Chandigarh while he was waiting for a bus to Kaithal. They were travelling in Fortuner Toyota Car. They offered him a lift. Meanwhile, they informed him that they had licence for export of gold. If the complainant invested about 24-25 lacs in the business, he could earn one crore in a span of 4 to 5 months. Next day, Sonu visited the complainant. The complainant stated that he could only invest 8 to 9 lacs rupees. Accordingly, he paid this amount to Sonu. However, neither was the gold of that value given to the complainant nor MANOJ KUMAR 2019.02.25 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-6503 of 2019 #2# was his money returned.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel has pointed out that apart from the present FIR, five more FIRs under Sections 420/406 IPC and other Sections of the IPC stand registered against the petitioner and the other co-accused. He further states that a large number of other victims have come forward with the allegations that the petitioner and his co-accused have duped them on the promise of good return in the gold investment.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the gravity of the offence as also the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Dismissed.

February 22, 2019 (Harinder Singh Sidhu) manoj Judge Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2019.02.25 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document