Parkshit v. State Of Haryana

CRM No.M-14067 of 2015 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M- 14067 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 19.08.2015 Parkshit ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN

Present:

Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Sheoran, D.A.G., Haryana for the State.

Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for the complainant.

**** SHEKHER DHAWAN, J.

Present petition for regular bail filed by petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.144 dated 18.04.2013 for the offence under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Butana, District Karnal.

2.

Allegations against the petitioner are that he along with accused-Des Raj, Meena Rani, Raj Kumar alias Raju, Nanki Devi, Randhir, Mohan Lal Argun, Amit and Ishwar Singh Lamberdar prepared fake documents pertaining to the plot of other persons and got the sale deed registered in their favour on the basis of fake documents and thereafter sold the same to the complainant for sale consideration of `35,40,250/-. Since NARESH KUMAR 2011.09.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-14067 of 2015 (O&M) -2long, accused persons were cheating the persons for sending them abroad and extracting money. The gang was headed by accused-Raj Kumar. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner took the plea that petitioner has no role in the present case, even if the entire case of the prosecution taken into consideration. He was just a witness of the sale deed. Coaccused Ishwar Singh has already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case CRM-M No.13795 of 2015 on 07.05.2015. So, the present petitioner be released on bail.

4.

Learned State counsel opposed the bail application on the ground that trial of the case is about to conclude as all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the case is fixed for recording statement of accused under Section 303 Cr.P.C. More so, petitioner is habitual offender of committing similar offences. So, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail.

5.

Without expressing anything on merits of the case and having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that petitioner is main accused involved in the commission of crime, as he was a witness to the sale deed. His photograph is also on the sale deed itself, whereas he appeared as Jaspal. Petitioner is also invovled in similar cases. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

6.

Accordingly, the regular bail application filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.

August 19, 2015 ( SHEKHER DHAWAN ) naresh.k JUDGE NARESH KUMAR 2011.09.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh