Baljit Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-18633 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 21, 2019 Baljit Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Dhruv Dayal, Sr.DAG, Punjab 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.27 dated 21.01.2019 under Sections, 380, 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar.

Notice of motion was issued. 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. The FIR in the present case was got registered by Kanwaljeet Kaur. As per the FIR, Kanwaljeet Kaur, complainant was not having cordial relations for the last many years with her husband Baljit Singh, VINEET GULATI 2019.05.22 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-18633 of 2019 -2present petitioner. As per the allegations, Baljit Singh along with his friends, was harassing the complainant and stolen cheque book from her Almirah. Thereafter, by appending false signatures of the complainant, Baljit Singh in connivance with his friend Sapinder Singh, hatched a conspiracy and by filling a sum of `3 lakhs in the said cheque, presented the same before the Bank. The complainant came to know regarding this fact when legal notice was received by her. As per the FIR, this cheque was handed over to Sapinder Singh from the bank account, which was already closed. In the FIR, it is also stated that present petitioner admitted in the compromise that he will hand-over the cheque book and all other documents to the complainant but one of the cheque has been misused.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case and in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, I find that petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and no ground is made out for granting benefit of anticipatory bail to him. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

May 21, 2019 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2019.05.22 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh