← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/19822/2015dismissed

Narinder Puri And ANR v. State Of Punjab

2015-06-18Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath2 pages

VINOD KUMAR 2015.06.19 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.M-19822 of 2015 [ 1 ] ******

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-19822 of 2015 Date of decision:18.06.2015 Narinder Puri and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

The petitioner has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a case registered vide FIR No.69 dated 27.04.2015, under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC at Police Station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar. The complainant has alleged that the petitioners have entered into an agreement to sell their house for a sum of `1,10,00,000/- and received `50,00,000/- as earnest money. However, they refused to execute the sale deed and, thus, played a fraud and cheating. Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that though there was money transaction but it was between their son Gagan Puri and the complainant as Gagan Puri had raised some loan from the complainant and in lieu thereof gave blank signed cheques and duly signed blank stamp

VINOD KUMAR 2015.06.19 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.M-19822 of 2015 [ 2 ] ****** papers. However, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to disclose as to what amount has been raised as loan by Gagan Puri from the complainant as nothing has been mentioned in the petition in that regard and has also failed to disclose the relationship of the complainant with the son of the petitioners on account of which the complainant has allegedly given loan of a huge amount of `60,00,000/- to Gagan Puri.

In view thereof, the story propounded by the petitioners cannot be believed at this stage. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. June 18, 2015 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge