Satpal Garg And ANR v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-22262 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 04, 2019 Satpal Garg and another

...Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.F.S.Virk, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Prabhjot Singh Walia, AAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr.Pankaj Mahavir Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.87 dated 20.04.2018 under Section 420 IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. The perusal of the FIR shows that complainant purchased a property in the year 2002 vide two sale deeds. It is argued that suit for VINEET GULATI 2019.07.16 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh specific performance was already pending qua that property. The

CRM No.M-22262 of 2018 -2complainant constructed the house but in the year 2015, he has been evicted from the house in compliance of execution of Civil Court decree. The allegations against the petitioners are that they have connived with otheraccused, who are decree holders. The petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are not required for custodial interrogation. The case is based on documentary evidence. The sale consideration of `1 lakh is stated to have already been paid. No useful purpose will be served by sending and keeping the petitioner in custody till the disposal of the case. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where petitioners are entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present petition is accepted and the order dated 31.05.2019 granting interim bail to the petitioners, is made absolute.

July 04, 2019 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2019.07.16 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh