High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/29303/2017dismissed

Suman Roy v. State Of Punjab

2017-09-14Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-29303 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 14, 2017 Suman Roy

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Sr.DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr.Munish Gupta, 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.0142 dated 03.07.2017 under Sections 406, 420 and 408 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, District Patiala.

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. From the record, I find that as per prosecution version, the Vineet Gulati 2017.09.19 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh present petitioner was given the responsibility to manage all the affairs of

CRM No.M-29303 of 2017 -2the hospital of the complainant including the financial transactions. The allegations against the petitioner are that he has not deposited total amount received in the OPD etc. He has also entered into agreement with the hospitals at Sunam and Khanna and received money from them, which has been deposited in the account of petitioner's wife. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the petitioner has also taken away Ford Endeavour of the complainant, which is still to be recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the vehicle is in possession of the complainant, whereas the Investigating Officer, who is present in the Court, denies this fact.

In view of the above facts, I find that petitioner is required for investigation and custodial interrogation.

Without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

September 14, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.09.19 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh