Ankush Bawa And Another v. State Of Chandigarh Ut

-1CRM-M-10261 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10261 of 2020 Date of Decision: 16.03.2020 Ankush Bawa and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Chandigarh UT ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present:- Mr. Manpreet Sawhney, Advocate, and Mr. H.S. Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Dogra, Advocate, for the complainant. RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, on his own, though she has not been impleaded as party. Same is taken on record.

Through this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners in case FIR No.0011 dated 30.01.2020 registered under Sections 381, 419, 420, 34, 201 IPC at Police Station North, Chandigarh.

According to prosecution, petitioners, who are married to each other, while working in a saloon named "Stylish Saloon", Sector 9, Chandigarh, run by complainant Guneet Swani, embezzled around `66.00 lakh by manipulating accounts and other related documents. Sessions Court earlier granted interim bail to the petitioners vide order dated 15.02.2020, but finally dismissed anticipatory bail RAVINDER SINGH 2020.05.21 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2CRM-M-10261 of 2020 application of the petitioners on 24.02.2020 on the ground that petitioners during concession of interim bail, did not co-operate in the investigation. Thus, they were required for custodial interrogation. Heard.

Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and CCTV footage, wherein petitioners are dealing with cash, this Court does not find any ground to grant concession of anticipatory bail to them. Dismissed.

(RAMENDRA JAIN) March 16, 2020 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2020.05.21 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document