Hanif Mohd v. State Of Haryana

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-3486 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:3.8.2016 Hanif Mohd.

.....Petitioner v.

State of Haryana .....Respondent ....

Present:

Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikramjit Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.12 dated 6.1.2014 registered for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station City Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar.

Notice of motion has been issued in this case. Mr. Vikramjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the record.

The allegation against the present petitioner is that Hanif Mohd. is the eye witness to the sale deed which has been executed by HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2016.08.04 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-3486 of 2016 [2] impersonation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments showed me the vernacular of the document where the name of the present petitioner has been deleted and the name of some other person with seal is there. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even on the vernacular of the document, there is no photograph of the petitioner. The petitioner has already joined the investigation. As stated he is not required for any custodial interrogation. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.

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, I find merit in this petition and the same is allowed. The interim order dated 2.2.2016 passed by this Court granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. August 3, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2016.08.04 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh