Mohammad Tahir v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-21639 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:16.8.2016 Mohammed Tahir

...Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Mansoor Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikramjit Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr. Anil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.417 dated 30.9.2015 registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC at Police Station Sector 31, Faridabad.

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Vikramjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Anil Bhardwaj, learned Advocate has appeared for the complainant and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.17 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-21639 of 2016 [2] learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana and learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record. As per the allegations in the present case, the petitioner along with his co-accused have cheated the complainant of `1 Crores (`33,88,000/- were given in cash; `62,61,900/- were given by cheque through Bank and `3,50,100/- as profit). It is stated that they cheated the complainant from the very beginning by alleging that this money will be doubled etc. There is also allegation regarding showing some forged and fabricated agreement etc. to the complainant. It is also in the FIR that so many post-dated cheques amounting to `1,99,00,000/- were given on different dates, which have been bounced.

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offences and facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find it a fit case where the present petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular bail. The case is at preliminary stage. There is also chance of tampering with the record. Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

August 16, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.17 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh