Gaurav Goyal v. State Of Haryana

Crl. Misc.No.M-14315 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc.No.M-14315 of 2015 Date of Decision : 4.5.2015 Gaurav Goyal ......Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana ......Respondent ...

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ...

Present :

Mr. S.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ...

1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

2. Whether the judgement should be reported in Digest ? RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.52 dated 6.2.2015 under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Central, Faridabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is habitual of levelling such kind of allegations. The petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant. He further submits that registration of the FIR at the instance of the complainant was the result of misuse of process of law by him, only with a view to put unwarranted pressure on the petitioner. He prays for allowing the present petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion GREESH SAHNI 2015.05.05 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Crl. Misc.No.M-14315 of 2015 that since the allegations against the petitioner are direct and serious, he is not entitled for pre-arrest bail. As per the allegations against the petitioner, he received huge amount running into more than 37.00 lacs from the complainant. Although the petitioner was not owner of the flat in question, still he issued receipts in token of having received the payment and himself became witness to the agreement to sell.

Under these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be compulsive necessity for the prosecution, so as to carry out an effective investigation.

Without commenting any further, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. Dismissed.

4.5.2015 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) GS JUDGE GREESH SAHNI 2015.05.05 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh