High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/1455/2016allowed

Harpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

2016-07-13Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-1455 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 13, 2016 Harpreet Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Tarun Jhatta, Advocate for Mr.Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.P.S.Grewal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.144 dated 04.12.2015 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station City Batala, District Batala.

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel appeared and contested this petition.

Police record is also available.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 04.02.2016, the petitioner has deposited `2 lacs by way of draft drawn in favour of the Corporation Bank, Batala Branch, Ludhiana, which VINEET GULATI 2016.07.16 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-1455 of 2016 -2has already been encashed as stated by learned State counsel. The FIR was got registered by the Corporation Bank, Zonal Office, Ludhiana that loan was sanctioned to the petitioner for purchase of vehicle and the vehicle has not been purchased and it was found that the documents submitted for finance of the vehicle, were fabricated and the DD was not deposited with the authorized dealer firm.

The petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no more required for custodial interrogation. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.

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 the petitioner is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present petition is accepted and the order dated 29.03.2016 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute. July 13, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI 2016.07.16 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh