← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/24573/2016allowed

Surender Jain v. State Of Haryana

2017-07-21Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj3 pages

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

1.

Crl. Misc. No.M-24573 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21 July, 2017 Surender Jain ......PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

State of Haryana ....RESPONDENT(s).

2.

Crl. Misc. No.M-26552 of 2016 (O&M) Satnarain Jain ......PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

State of Haryana ....RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. V.K.Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amardeep Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-24573-2016.

Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-26552-2016.

Mr. Deepak Grewal, D.A.G, Haryana.

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) Both the aforementioned petitions have been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 124 dated 02.04.2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) (Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC added later on) at Police Station City Kaithal, District Kaithal.

-2Heard.

The FIR was registered on the complaint by Rajesh Bansal partner of M/s R N Rice Mill Export and Domestic Unit, Kaithal (Haryana) wherein he reported his cheating by two persons namely Sanjeev Bansal and Dinesh Gupta. Later on, it was found that both of them were impersonated by Rajeev Kumar and Ishwar Singh, who have cheated the complainant by purchasing the consignment of rice, out of which 200 bags each were sold to petitioners Surender Jain and Satnarain Jain. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that even if the version as given by the prosecution be believed, no offence of cheating against the petitioners is made out as they were never involved in dealing of the complainant with aforesaid Rajeev Kumar and Ishwar Singh. The matter is still under investigation and both the petitioners have joined the investigation.

Keeping in view the above facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and the order dated 22.07.2016 passed in CRM-M-24573-2016 and order dated 03.08.2016 passed in CRM-M- 26552-2016 are made absolute till the presentation of challan, subject to the following terms:- (i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against them so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

-3- (iv) that the petitioners will seek regular bail on the presentation of challan in Court.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) July 21, 2017 JUDGE Sachin M.

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No