Rajvinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-22891 of 2018 Date of decision:28.9.2018 Rajvinder Singh

...Petitioner

v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

....

Coram:

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

Present:

Mr. Rohit Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Monika Jalota, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.26 dated 06.04.2018 registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Mukandpur, District S.B.S. Nagar.

Notice of motion was issued in this case.

Ms. Monika Jalota, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has appeared on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. As per the allegations, the petitioner cheated complainantKamaljit Kaur and took `3 Lakhs for sending her daughter to Australia and HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2018.10.01 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-22891 of 2018 [2] got prepared fake tickets and given to them. The present petitioner is the only main accused who cheated the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, at this stage, there is no evidence against the petitioner.

At the time of grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is not to weigh the evidence whether it is sufficient or not. The FIR has been got registered by Kamaljit Kaur levelling serious allegations against the present petitioner and he is the only accused.

The learned State counsel has brought it to my notice that there are other four FIRs registered against the present petitioner under Sections 420, 467 IPC etc.

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offences and serious allegations against the present petitioner, I find that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, therefore, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

September 28, 2018.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2018.10.01 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh