← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/17494/2019disposed of

Manjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2020-01-10Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh3 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 17494 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 10.01.2020 Manjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

***** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J .(Oral) The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.28 dated 07.02.2019, registered under Sections 408 and 420 of IPC, at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur.

Notice of motion was issued on 16.04.2019 by passing the following order:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case against the petitioner is totally concocted. Otherwise also, the bills alleged in the FIR pertain to the

-2year 2017. There could not have been any reason for the complainant to remain silent for such a long time, had the petitioner actually done the fraud as alleged against him. In fact, the complainant is only a franchise of an Oil Company. He could not account for sale of the petrol/diesel, to the Company in its entirety. There were certain amounts which the complainant could not explain to the Company. Hence, the petitioner has been made scapegoat by putting upon him the blame of embezzling those amounts. Still further, it is submitted that this is not the first instance where the family of the complainant has devised this kind of modality for cheating the Oil Company. In case of another petrol pump, owned by brother of the present complainant, the same modality was employed by the brother of the complainant as well. Otherwise also, there is nothing on record even to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged fraud.

Notice of motion for 13.08.2019.

Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C."

In compliance to the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has joined the investigation and undertakes to join further investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency.

-3Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Gurtej Singh states that his custodial interrogation is no more required in further investigation of the case.

In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, order dated 16.04.2019 is made absolute, however petitioner shall keep on abiding the conditions as envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

Petition stands disposed of.

10.01.2020 ( Raj Mohan Singh ) geeta Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No