High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/35688/2015dismissed

Ravinder Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2015-11-06Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-35688 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 06, 2015 Ravinder Kumar

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Ajay Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

CRM No.36511 of 2015 The application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Annexure P-6 is taken on record.

CRM No.M-35688 of 2015 Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.555 dated 09.12.2014 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector5, Panchkula. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

The FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of complaint sent by Ajay Sharma to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Panchkula. As per the FIR, Ravinder Kumar along with his VINEET GULATI 2015.11.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-35688 of 2015 -2brother-in-law Jagdev Sodhi met complainant for discussing a criminal case pending in the Court at Panchkula, in which he was co-accused. Ravinder Kumar along with Jagdev Sodhi told him that he has good contacts with the management of Adesh Medical College and he will get the admission done in the college. Rajinder Kumar was stated to be P.A. to Mr.H.S.Gill, who was stated to be Director of the Adesh Medical College. The accused also stated that he knew personally Rajinder Kumar P.A. to Mr.H.S.Gill. A negotiation took place with Ravinder Kumar and Rajinder Kumar and they agreed for admission in `25 lacs. It is further stated that two cheques of `7 lacs and `2 lacs were given. The cheque was issued from the account of complainant's elder brother Sanjay Kumar. Rajinder Kumar gave an acknowledgment of `17 lacs but no admission was got effected. They made excuses and money was not returned.

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Therefore, finding no merit in the present case, the same is dismissed.

November 06, 2015 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI 2015.11.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh