High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/3929/2017allowed

Prem Pal Singh v. State Of Punjab And ANR

2017-04-20Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-3929 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 20, 2017 Prem Pal Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.V.P.S.Sidhu, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr.Parveen Kumar, Advocate for Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in criminal complaint No.146/2/08 dated 01.09.2008 titled as 'Punjab Urban Development Authority vs. Amarjit Singh and others' under Section 36 read with Sections 3, 5,8, 9, 14(2), 15, 18, 21 of Punjab Apartment of Property Regulation Act, 1995 and 120-B IPC.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and contested the petition. Vineet Gulati 2017.04.21 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned

CRM No.M-3929 of 2017 -2State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that the petitioner has already surrendered before the trial Court and he has already been released on interim bail by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had gone to Canada in April 2008 and is now permanently settled there and acquired citizenship in 2013 and since the day, he left India, has not come back to India till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the petitioner was having no intimation qua the present case.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.

Therefore, without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where the petitioner is entitled to benefit of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present petition is accepted and the order dated 15.02.2017 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute. April 20, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.04.21 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh