High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/14558/2018allowed

Bhupinder Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Another

2018-08-20Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-14558 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 20, 2018 Bhupinder Kumar

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Akashdeep Singh, Advocate for for the petitioner.

Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr.Satish K. Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.315 dated 12.06.2017 under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on 06.04.2018 made VINEET GULATI 2018.08.21 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh statement before this Court that petitioner never gave any kind of

CRM No.M-14558 of 2018 -2declaration at the time of sanction of loan that property in question was encumbered nor there is any such condition in the loan application form or agreement.

In view of the statement before this Court, the petitioner has already deposited `2 lakhs with the complainant and `3 lakhs was later on paid as per his statement, out of the loan amount, which fact is admitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant. The petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is not required for investigation or custodial interrogation. No useful purpose will be served by sending him 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 06.04.2018 granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute.

August 20, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2018.08.21 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh