Ashish Bansal v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....

Criminal Misc. No.M-31597 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:25.9.2018 Ashish Bansal

...Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana and another

...Respondents

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the complainant. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.39 dated 26.01.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station City Jind, District. Jind.

Notice of motion has been issued in this case. Mr. B.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. S.S. Narula, learned Advocate has appeared for complainant-respondent No.2 and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and learned State HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2018.10.01 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-31597 of 2016 (O&M) [2] counsel appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the record.

As per the allegations against the present petitioner, he had taken CC limits of `31 Lakhs, `40 Lakhs and also taken term loan for `12,74,000/- on the basis of documents which are found fake. Further the allegations against the petitioner are that he had created 6-7 fake firms and obtained loan in the name of these firms and during investigation it has been found that the petitioner was found connected with the fake firms. The total allegations against the present petitioner regarding fraud etc. are about `6,90,00,000/-.

Keeping in view the serious allegations against the present petitioner and in view of the fact that he is required for custodial interrogation, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail.

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

September 25, 2018.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2018.10.01 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh