Mukesh Chauhan v. State Of Haryana

Tapinder Singh Mann 2016.08.27 16:41 Cr. Misc. M 19607 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Cr. Misc. M 19607 of 2016 Date of decision: 27.8.2016 Mukesh Chauhan Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana Respondent

Present:

Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate.

Mr. CS Bakshi, Addl.A.G. Hry Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate.

M.M.S.BEDI,J.

The petitioner is a lady, who seeks the concession of prearrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Ajmer Singh alleging that he was induced by Sonal and her husband Kishore Kumar to part with a huge amount on the pretext of his son and four other persons being employed in BSF as Kishore Kumar was employed with BSF. As per the story of the prosecution, forged appointment letters of Clerk and Peons in Kurukshetra University were issued. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that there are no allegations against the petitioner in the FIR and main accused Sonal has been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. It has also been urged that the only allegation against the petitioner is of having secured forged appointment letters at the instance of co-accused Sonal. With the assistance of State counsel and counsel for the complainant, I have gone through the statements of the parties recorded at the preliminary stage and during the course of investigation. There are specific allegations against the petitioner of having received money to the

Cr. Misc. M 19607 of 2016 extent of Rs. 36 lacs and having returned Rs. 27.50 lacs. I have also considered the contention of counsel for the petitioner regarding parity with Sonal. So far as Sonal is concerned, she was granted anticipatory bail on 21.4.2016 on account of she having settled the controversy with the complainant party.

Though the petitioner has joined the investigation but in view of serious allegations against her, I do not find sufficient ground to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. The circumstance of petitioner being a lady and she having discharged her liability by paying money earlier, may constitute a good ground for regular bail but no extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to her. August 27 ,2016 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned Yes/ No Whether Reportable Yes/ No