High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/39191/2016allowed

Kapil Loomba v. State Of Punjab

2017-02-07Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No. 203 Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-39191 of 2016 Date of Decision : February 07, 2017 Kapil Loomba ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab ....

Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

* * * Present :

Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Yadav, AAG, Punjab.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL , J.

Through this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 168 dated 17.07.2016, registered under Section 420 IPC, at Police Station Civil Lines, District Patiala.

While issuing notice of motion on 04.11.2016, this Court had granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to his joining investigation and conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant had contacted the petitioner, who was a Property Dealer, for purchase of a

residential plot. The petitioner, in turn, introduced the complainant to M/s U. K. Homes Private Limited (for short - the Company), who was launching a project in Zirakpur, where the complainant wished to buy a residential plot. The complainant, after meeting the Managing Director and other Directors of the aforesaid Company, agreed to purchase a plot measuring 125 sq. yds. @ ` 13,500/- per sq. yd. and in pursuance to such agreement, he paid to the Company an amount of ` 8,21,210/-. Later, when the complainant came to know that no such project had been launched, he filed a complaint with the police, which formed the basis of the FIR in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is merely a Property Dealer and had no connection, whatsoever, with the Company and as per the complainant's own saying, he made the investment after meeting the Managing Director and Directors of the Company. Thus, the petitioner was completely innocent. It is further submitted that the petitioner, in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court, has duly joined the investigation and has fully co-operated with the police. Learned State counsel opposes the grant of bail saying that there are serious allegations against the petitioner.

complainant after having personally met the Managing Director and Directors of the Company.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and order dated 04.11.2016 granting ad-interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Nothing observed herein above shall be considered as an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. ( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE February 07, 2017 monika Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.