← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/34273/2013dismissed

Akbar v. Dev Raj & ORS

2015-01-15Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on: January 15, 2015.

(1) CRM-M-34273-2013 (O&M).

Akbar ..... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Dev Raj and others ..... Respondent(s) * * * (2) CRM-M-36331-2013 (O&M).

Akbar ..... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Kanta Rani and others ..... Respondent(s) * * * (3) CRM-M-36334-2013 (O&M).

Akbar ..... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Iqbal and others ..... Respondent(s) * * * (4) CRM-M-36341-2013 (O&M).

Akbar ..... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Majid and another ..... Respondent(s) * * *

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT Mr.C.M.Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Mohd. Arshad, Advocate, and Mr.Jamshed Ahmad, Advocate, for the private respondents.

Mr.M.S.Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL) This order will dispose of the above noted four petitions i.e. CRM-M-34273 of 2013 titled Akbar Vs.Dev Raj and others, CRM-M-36331 of 2013 titled Akbar Vs.Kanta Rani and others, CRM-M-36334 of 2013 titled Akbar Vs.Iqbal and others, and CRM-M36341 of 2013 titled Akbar Vs.Majid and others. Private respondents in all the cases had been granted concession of pre-arrest bail.

Allegations have been levelled that the private respondents have not joined investigation and the relevant documents required for fair investigation have not been handed over to the investigating agency.

State counsel, on the instructions of ASI Radha Ram, informs that the challan has already been presented in the case and all the private respondents-accused are appearing before the Court. Next date of hearing before the trial Court is stated to be 20.1.2015, for framing of charges.

I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The allegation against the private respondents in the FIR is

that they all connived with each other and prepared forged Sanad and agreement of sale dated 21.6.2012. The civil suit is also stated to be pending on the basis of the agreement of sale. The private respondents having been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail have been charge sheeted and are appearing before the Court after furnishing bail bonds. It has been informed that a complaint has been filed against the petitionercomplainant Akbar in which summons have been issued in a counter case against him.

In view of said circumstances, it is not a fit case to pass an order for cancellation of the bail granted to the private respondents as there is nothing before this Court to establish that they have misused the liberty pursuant to the bail granted to them. All the four petitions are dismissed.

(M.M.S. BEDI) January 15, 2015.

JUDGE rka