Deval Rana v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 30.01.2024 DEVAL RANA ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the complainant. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 16.03.2023, the following order was passed :- The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.14 dated 15.01.2023 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala. The allegations against the petitioner are that he agreed to give his Rice Sheller to the complainant on lease and obtained Rs.17,00,000/- from him despite the fact that bank loan of Rs.75,00,000/- was outstanding against the said Rice Sheller. The bank had proceeded under SARFEASI Act and obtained order from District Magistrate, Ambala and w.e.f. 08.10.2021 the Rice Sheller of the petitioner was the property of the bank.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was duly stated in the agreement that the Rice Sheller is mortgaged with the Bank of Baroda and already seized by the bank for nonpayment of the loan amount.
agreement after duly verifying all the aspects relating to the Rice Sheller. The complainant has caused loss to the petitioner as due to the act of the complainant, the Rice Sheller has remained idle. The petitioner requested time and again to the complainant to take possession of the Rice Sheller but he had changed his mind and backed out from the agreement. The petitioner is already ready and willing to join the investigation.
! " #
#
$%
# & '
&
%#%!
&(
# ## $% #% & %& # "
! "
& )& % #% ( %!
## & # #
&%
%#%! &* &
+, - " % #
&
&
*
(
&##$ -(
"
&!
&!& &
#
%%$%&
#
!$ %$*
# %. !
$ &
.-(
/ #
%%% $ &$! &
#
&&
,012 2.
Today, Ld. State Counsel on instructions from SI Parmod submits that the petitioner has already joined investigation and is no more required for custodial interrogation.
3.
Without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the aforesaid fact, order dated 16.03.2023 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. 4.
This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not
be read granting the petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 5.
This order does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate into the charges against the petitioner.
6.
The petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by the petitioner in case the occasion arises.
7.
It will be open to the police or the investigating agency to move this Court for a direction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, noncooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial. 8.
Petition stands disposed off accordingly.
January 30, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No