← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/16888/2015dismissed

Balaur Singh v. State Of Punjab And ANR

2015-06-29Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon2 pages

CRM-M 16888 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M 16888 of 2015 Date of decision : 29.06.2015 Balaur Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab & anr.

....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for the complainant. RAJAN GUPTA J.

This is a petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 194 dated 19.07.2014 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC at Police Station City Barnala.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. From the contents of the FIR, no case is made out against the petitioner. Main accused in the FIR is Karamjit Singh who has duped the petitioner as well.

Prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel. According to him, allegations in the FIR are very serious. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in view of same. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the FIR complainant alleged that he wished to purchase some land in the village. He alongwith his relative met a AJAY KUMAR 2015.07.14 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M 16888 of 2015 property dealer who took him to Karamjit Singh. The land was shown to the complainant. At that time, petitioner- Balaur Singh who claimed to be owner of the land was also present. Thus, a deal was struck about 15 killas of land. Thereafter, complainant handedover almost `1,30,20,000/- to the accused. Date of registration of sale-deed was fixed as 02.05.2012. However, it did not materialize as intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed.

June 29, 2015 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE AJAY KUMAR 2015.07.14 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document