← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/37798/2018dismissed

Harvinder Singh And Another v. State Of Punjab

2018-09-24Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-37798 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 24, 2018 Harvinder Singh and another

...Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.H.P.S.Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms.Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.149 dated 24.12.2015 under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 4/5 of Prize Chit and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala.

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

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. As per the FIR, Lal Khan alias Lalli committed fraud of crores of rupees through Khalsa Gift Enterprises at Village Lubana Karmoo. It is VINEET GULATI 2018.09.25 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-37798 of 2018 -2stated by the complainants that Lal Khan through Khalsa Gift Enterprises allured people of prizes and got membership of 2000 people and received `1,300/- per month from every member. After opening of the scheme, draw was carried at Nabha for six months and afterwards, draw was opened outside Punjab and thereafter, the draw was opened at Nabha again. Complainants had paid `13,000/-. As per the FIR, accused cheated them and have not returned money etc. Present petitioners are also stated to be partners in the firm.

By taking `1,300/- per month from 2000 people for months together, accused have looted the people and have committed fraud. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, nature and gravity of the offence and in view of the serious allegations against the petitioners being partners in the firm, I find that petitioners are required for custodial interrogation and no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to them.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

However, nothing stated above, shall constitute my opinion on merits of the case.

September 24, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2018.09.25 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh