High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/36587/2016dismissed

Sanjay Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2016-11-10Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-36587 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 10, 2016 Sanjay Kumar

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.325 dated 17.09.2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Sonepat.

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant entered into an agreement to sell at the instance of present petitioner Sanjay Kumar with his cousin namely Pawan Kumar. It is the allegation that `33,01,000/- has Vineet Gulati 2016.11.11 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-36587 of 2016 -2been paid as earnest money etc. but no plot/flat has been given to the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner was only employee of the company and when he found that company is cheating the people, petitioner himself made a complaint in the year 2011 to Delhi Police and has left the job.

I have perused the police record and the receipt regarding giving of `33,01,000/- by the present petitioner. The agreement which has been entered between the company of Pawan Kumar and complainant, is also signed by present petitioner. During investigation, even this agreement was found to be attested by a Notary but there is no such Notary and the attestation was found forged.

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence and the role played by present petitioner in the fraud and in view of the fact that petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, I do not find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

November 10, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2016.11.11 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh