← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/21300/2015dismissed

Ravinder Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2015-08-18Mr. Justice Girish Agnihotri2 pages

CRM No.M-21300 of 2015 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M- 21300 of 2015 Date of Decision:- 18.08.2015 Ravinder Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN

Present:

Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Sheoran, D.A.G., Haryana for the State.

**** SHEKHER DHAWAN, J.

Learned State counsel has placed on record detailed report of criminal cases registered against the present petitioner. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner took the plea that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Allegations against the petitioner in the present case are that he along with his other co-accused forged the Will of Ram Sarup son of Shri Jamna in favour of his mother after the death of aforesaid Ram Sarup and the same are totally wrong. No such act was done by the petitioner. The Will in question is genuine. Complainant got registered the present false case against the petitioner only because of the fact that complainant wanted to purchase the land in question at lesser rate. So, the petitioner be released on regular bail. NARESH KUMAR 2011.09.24 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-21300 of 2015 -23.

Learned State counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is habiutal offender and does not deserves the concession of bail. So, his bail application be dismissed. 4.

Keeping in view the allegations against the petitioner that he is involved in forging of document i.e. Will and is involved in 11 other criminal cases, as detailed in the report submitted by the police, including three cases of U.P. Gunda Act, one case registered under Sections 302 and 394 IPC against FIR No.335/05, one case registered under Sections 395, 397 and 411 IPC against FIR No.406/11, one case registered against under Section 25 of the Arms Act against FIR No.359/02 along with other cases. As such, petitioner does not deserves the concession of regular bail. 5.

Petition dismissed.

August 18, 2015 ( SHEKHER DHAWAN ) naresh.k JUDGE NARESH KUMAR 2011.09.24 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh