← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/35488/2018dismissed

Tavninder Singh Panesar @ Sonu v. State Of Punjab

2018-08-24Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-35488 of 2018 Date of decision:24.8.2018 Tavninder Singh Panesar alias Sonu

...Petitioner

v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

....

Coram:

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

Present:

Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Sharda, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.222 dated 7.11.2017 registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, District Patiala.

Notice of motion has been issued in this case. Mr. Pawan Sharda, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has appeared on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that in the present case the FIR has been HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2018.08.27 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-35488 of 2018 [2] got registered by Jagdev Singh and Harjinder Singh against Anu Sharma, Press Reporter Chamakde Taare, Tavninder Singh Panesar alias Sonu, Press Reporter, Chamakde Taare and Mandeep Singh Grewal alias Ravi on the allegations that `8 lakhs each from both the complainants were obtained by the accused on the pretext of getting job. Thereafter, they issued forged cheques for refund of the amount. A perusal of the FIR shows that the present petitioner is named in the FIR. The allegations are that `16 lakhs were paid to all the accused in three instalments. Keeping in view the serious allegations and active role played by the present petitioner in the commission of offence and 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.

August 24, 2018.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2018.08.27 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh