High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/14837/2015dismissed

Ranjit Sharma v. State Of Punjab

2015-05-12Mr. Justice T.H.B. Chalapathi2 pages

Crl.Misc. No.M-14837 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.Misc. No.M-14837 of 2015 Date of Decision : 12.5.2015 Ranjit Sharma ......Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ......Respondent ...

CORAM :

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

Present :

Mr. Gursimran Singh, Advocate Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Bhargav, Advocate for the complainant. ...

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.70 dated 10.4.2015 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Chherretta, Distt. Amritsar City.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was only an attesting witness to the sale deed. He was not the beneficiary. There was no other allegation against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, he prays for allowing the present petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after careful perusal of the record of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that keeping in view the peculiar fact situation, petitioner has not been found entitled for the concession of pre arrest bail. It is so said, because on the last GREESH SAHNI 2015.05.12 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Crl.Misc. No.M-14837 of 2015 date of hearing, when the case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to get instructions from the petitioner, as to whether he is ready to refund the amount of the complainant. However, today the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he has got the instructions to say that since the petitioner has not received any amount, he was unable to pay any amount to the complainant.

Under the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, noticed herein above, the petitioner has not been found entitled for pre-arrest bail. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner shall be the compulsive necessity of the investigating agency to conduct an effective investigation. No case for interference is made out.

Dismissed.

12.5.2015 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) GS JUDGE GREESH SAHNI 2015.05.12 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh