High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/27714/2018allowed

Pyare Lal v. State Of Haryana

2018-07-19Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-27714 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 19, 2018 Pyare Lal

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Gurbir Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr.Anirudh Singh Shera, Advocate for the complainant.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.331 dated 10.04.2017 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra.

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, a false agreement to sell of the Vineet Gulati 2018.07.20 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh property of complainant has been prepared, which is got executed by the

CRM No.M-27714 of 2018 -2present petitioner. It is stated that the said agreement was prepared at the instance of Gurcharan Lal. The allegation against the petitioner is that the said agreement to sell was prepared by Gurcharan Lal, Karam Singh and Pyare Lal (present petitioner) in favour of Mewa Singh in connivance with each other.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that complainant has signed on the agreement to sell and contains his signatures. He has disputed the fact that complainant has not signed on the agreement. Further, it is stated that suit for specific performance is already pending in the Court. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that a complaint has also been made against Gurcharan Lal, who is real brother of the complainant that he has obtained signatures of the complainant on three blank papers etc. The petitioner has been in custody since 22.05.2018. He is not required for any investigation or interrogation purposes as he is in judicial custody. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody till disposal of the case.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. July 19, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2018.07.