Firoz Khan v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:28.05.2021 (Heard through VC) Firoz Khan

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR Present:- Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Raja Paramdeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhupinder Beniwal, AAG, Punjab.

None for the complainant.

**** JAISHREE THAKUR, J.

(ORAL) This is a petition that has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.77 dated 10.09.2020 registered under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 115, 506, 120-B IPC and Sections 413, 414, 473, 201 IPC (added later on vide DDR No.10 dated 12.10.2020) at Police Station Naya Gaon, District SAS Nagar.

Mr. Bali, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Raja Paramdeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner herein inter alia would contend the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the said matter with allegations of him having forged cheques and withdrawn money from the account of the complainant. It is submitted that in fact the petitioner was working with the complainant at one point of time and thereafter, parted ways with him. There was a dispute inter se parties in which interim order was passed, which came to be withdrawn as the matter had been

-2compromised. The petitioner had also made payment of Rs.10 lakhs to the complainant therein. It is argued that the allegations that he has siphoned money from the account of the complainant herein is not borne out from the testimony of the complainant that has been recorded in the proceedings under the said FIR. It is also submitted that in fact, the petitioner herein has ample proof to show that he had already transmitted amount of Rs.1.65 crores into the bank account of the family members of the complainant herein and therefore, all allegations that the petitioner herein has duped the complainant does not stand to reason. At this juncture, it is also pointed out that the entire FIR has been filed at the behest of son of the complainant, who was a senior police officer at Mohali.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes grant of regular bail to the petitioner by contending that the petitioner herein had duped the complainant in transactions pertaining to property and had forged cheques.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the order passed by this Court on an earlier occasion wherein the regular bail petition was dismissed by taking into consideration that the charges had not been framed and the complainant had not been examined. A perusal of the pleadings would reflect that statement of the complainant has been recorded and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to keep the petitioner in custody any longer. Considering the fact that the material witness has been examined and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude owing to present COVID-19 pandemic situation, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular

-3bail on execution of adequate personal/surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, any observation made herein shall not be construed to be an expression on merits of the case. (JAISHREE THAKUR) May 28, 2021 JUDGE Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No