High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/12676/2019dismissed

Gagandeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

2019-03-19Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain2 pages

CRM-M-12676-2019 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12676-2019 Date of decision: 19.03.2019 Gagandeep Singh ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Swaran Tiwana, Advocate for the petitioner. RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Through this petition under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 39 dated 15.02.2019 registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner and his wifeBaljeet Kaur, allured complainant-Rupinder Kaur Bhandal, to invest in property to earn good profit, through their sons, namely; Simranjit Singh and Sukhsamjeet Singh, who were doing the business of real estate in Faridkot and in the surrounding areas and were well experienced in property dealing. Since, the petitioner was closely related to the complainant, therefore, she under bona fide belief and having blind faith upon the petitioner and his wife and their two sons, transferred/paid ` 1,10,00,000/-. Learned counsel inter alia contends that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case. Even a single penny was not transferred to the account of petitioner. He is innocent. The complainant had RISHU KATARIA 2019.03.28 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-12676-2019 -2purchased shares of the company of the sons of the petitioner for around `19,00,000/- and rest of the money was transferred by the complainant in the account of his sons.

Since the allegations against the petitioner are of cheating and committing fraud of huge amount of ` 1,10,00,000/- from a lady, therefore, it is apparent that petitioner and his family members are of great criminal ill. Therefore, they do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail, inasmuch as, they are required for custodial interrogation to know their modus operandi and method of cheating the complaint. That apart, recovery of said amount has to be effected from the petitioner and his family members. Dismissed.

March 19, 2019 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2019.03.28 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document