Avneet Rawat v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: October 1, 2015 Avneet Rawat

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

Present:

Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Avneet Rawat, son of Inderpal Rawat, resident of House No. 104, Mahavir Colony, Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 and 506, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 540, dated 18.9.2014, registered at Police Station, Sector 7, Faridabad. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was working with Sai Developers from May, 2013 to September 3, 2013; the case is of civil nature; the investigation is complete and all the documents are in possession of the police; and that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the material available on record, this Court finds

that while lodging the report with the police, the informant, Narender Kumar, alleged that he was in need of a plot for constructing the house and in that regard he contacted Arun Kumar, the co-accused of the petitioner. `60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) was paid as down payment and it was agreed that `12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) per month for one year, would be paid for allotment of Plot Nos. 448-449, measuring 100 Sq. Yards, to the informant. When the informant went to deposit the instalment of the plot in the office of the accused in the month of August, 2014, then he found that the office was locked from outside. On verification, the informant came to know that there was neither any land in the name of Sai Developers nor permission for change of land use was obtained from the government.

During investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner and his co-accused had cheated the aggrieved persons for an amount of `1,80,58,168/- (Rupees one crore, eighty lacs, fifty-eight thousand, one hundred and sixty-eight only). The investigation qua the petitioner is pending. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner would facilitate the investigating agency to unearth the modus operandi of the petitioner for committing cheating and fraud with the public. No ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out.

Dismissed.

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE October 1, 2015

Pkapoor