Sarwan Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1CRM-M-18204 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18204 of 2020 Date of Decision: 29.07.2020 Sarwan Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present:- Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab.

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to pandemic Covid-19.

Through this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner - Sarwan Singh - in case FIR No.42 dated 16.03.2020 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 406, 306 IPC at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar. According to prosecution, co-accused of petitioner, namely; Swaran Singh, cheated and defrauded deceased-Amritpal Singh, brother of complainant, who was working as Security Guard with HDFC Bank, Lopoke, on the pretext of sending him abroad by providing fake VISA. Resultantly, being depressed, Amritpal Singh, committed suicide or was murdered on 11.03.2020. After five days, i.e. on 16.03.2020, a writing was recovered from the bag of deceased-Amritpal Singh. He specifically RAVINDER SINGH 2020.07.29 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2CRM-M-18204 of 2020 mentioned therein that he was committing suicide, on account of fraud and cheating committed by the petitioner and his accomplice. Learned counsel inter alia submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner submitting that case of the petitioner cannot be treated on the same parity as that of his co-accused, who have been granted bail, as he is the main accused because petitioner's name is mentioned by the deceased in suicide-note, who cheating and defrauding him issued fake visa.

Considering overall facts and circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court petitioner is certainly required for custodial interrogation to unearth his modus operandi and the source from where he used to get fake visas. Thus, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Dismissed.

(RAMENDRA JAIN) July 29, 2020 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2020.07.29 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document