Joginder Singh @ Gindi v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-26285 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 12, 2018 Joginder Singh alias Gindi

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.B.S.Virk, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.56 dated 16.01.2018 under Sections 447, 420, 506 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sarai Khawaja, District Faridabad.

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. As per allegations in the FIR, Joginder Singh @ Gindi and his Vineet Gulati 2018.07.13 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh associates encroached illegally upon the land possessed by the complainant

CRM No.M-26285 of 2018 -2and have been constructing residential houses over the same. It is also in the FIR that he and his men raised 10-12 houses in night time. Joginder Singh @ Gindi has purchased 8 kanals of land and he sold the same to many people but by showing the documents of that lease, he has encroached upon the complainant's land and has also given threats to complainant to kill him. Learned State counsel contended that there are 33 FIRs against the present petitioner. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in so many cases, the petitioner has already been acquitted and only 4-5 cases remain pending against him.

From the record, I find that so many FIRs have been registered against the present petitioner, though, in number of cases, he has been acquitted but still, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and no ground is made out for granting anticipatory bail to him.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

However, nothing stated above, shall constitute my opinion on merits of the case.

July 12, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2018.07.13 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh