← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/1881/2018allowed

Sushil v. State Of Haryana

2018-07-19Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (i) CRM No.M-1881 of 2018 (O&M) Sushil

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

(ii) CRM No.M-13297 of 2018 (O&M) Rammehar

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

Date of Decision: July 19, 2018

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Mannat Anand, Advocate for Mr.Manoj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-1881 of 2018). Mr.Randeep Singh Dhull, Advocate for Mr.Harish Nain, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-13297 of 2018). M.Sukhdeep Parmar, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together as these have arisen from same FIR.

Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Vineet Gulati 2018.07.20 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-1881 of 2018 and connected petition -2for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.78 dated 24.03.2017 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 419 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Julana, District Jind.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petitions.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that the petitioners are not named in the FIR. The main allegation against them is that they have filled forms etc. They are not the beneficiary in the fraud, as per investigation. The petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are not required for investigation or interrogation purposes. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners 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 petitioners are entitled to benefit of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, both the petitions are accepted and the order dated 18.01.2018 passed in CRM No.M-1881 of 2018 and order dated 02.04.2018 passed in CRM No.M-13297 of 2018 granting interim bail to the petitioners, are made absolute.

July 19, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2018.07.20 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh