← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/18507/2015disposed of

Sukhdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

2015-08-24Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(1) CRM No.M-18507 of 2015 Sukhdeep Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

(2) CRM No.M-18515 of 2015 Jagjeet Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

Date of Decision: August 24, 2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms.Simsi Dhir Malhotra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together being arisen from same FIR.

Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.42 dated 07.05.2015 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel VINEET GULATI 2015.08.25 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-18507 of 2015 and connected case -2appeared and contested the petitions.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. As per the prosecution version, FIR has been registered at the instance of complainant Avtar Singh, who mainly stated that Gurjeet Singh got agreement to sell of land measuring 3 acres for total sale consideration of `25,80,000/- per acre from the owner of land namely Jagjeet Singh in favour of the complainant. `1 lac was paid as earnest money to Gurjeet Singh. Neither the earnest money was returned nor the sale deed was executed. The complainant also came to know that Gurjeet Singh has forged the signatures of Jagjeet Singh.

The petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are not required for custodial interrogation nor anything is to be recovered from them. The dispute looks like of civil nature. The case is based upon documentary evidence. 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 merits of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage, I find merit in both the petitions and the same are allowed. The orders dated 29.05.2015 passed in both the petitions, granting interim bail to the petitioners, are made absolute.

August 24 , 2015 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI 2015.08.25 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh