High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/18923/2015dismissed

Rajiv Yadav v. State Of Haryana

2015-07-10Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon2 pages

CRM M-18923 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM M-18923 of 2015 Date of decision : 10.07.2015 Rajiv Yadav ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

Mr. Naveen Jaglan, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Nara, Advocate for the complainant.

RAJAN GUPTA J.

Petitioner seeks concession of regular bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No. 67/2013 dated 13.03.2013 under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/506/120-B/34 IPC at Police Station Naraingarh, district Ambala.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody during the pendency of trial as evidence is documentary in nature. Besides, allegations are vague and no recovery was effected from the petitioner. A compromise was earlier effected between the parties. Thus, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Plea has been opposed by learned State counsel. According to him, allegations against the petitioner are serious. Thus, no case for grant of bail is made out.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. AJAY KUMAR 2015.07.16 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM M-18923 of 2015 FIR was lodged by Devi Chand who stated that his son Ashok Kumar was fond of playing cricket and had won many awards. His talent was well recognized. They, thus, started receiving phone calls from the person(s) wanting to promote him to play at higher level. Accused approached the complainant and promised that son of complainant would play in Ranji Trophy as well as IPL. However, huge amount would be required for this purpose. Complainant, thus, sold his ancestral property and paid `24,50,000/- to the accused. Most of this money was deposited in the bank accounts of the accused. However, accused intended to defraud the complainant, thus, misappropriated the amount. Complainant requested that appropriate action be taken against the accused.

Keeping in view nature of allegations and gravity of offence, I am of the considered view that no case for grant of bail is made out. Dismissed.

July 10, 2015 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE AJAY KUMAR 2015.07.16 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document