High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/40043/2015dismissed

Balwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2015-11-28Mr. Justice S.C. Malte2 pages

Criminal Misc.No.M-40043 of 2015 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.M-40043 of 2015 Date of Decision: November 28, 2015 Balwinder Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

Present:

Mr.Amandeep Singh, Advocate, for Mr.P.S.Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.(Oral) Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Balwinder Singh, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.118, dated 23.06.2015, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Ludhiana. Learned counsel contends that in a false and frivolous case, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused; and the informant side never paid any amount for sending their wards to a foreign country.

I have heard learned proxy counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance gone through the material available on SEEMA RANI 2015.12.01 13:43 I attest the accuracy and authencity of the document

Criminal Misc.No.M-40043 of 2015 [2] record.

As per the complaint presented before the police by Manwinder Singh, the petitioner and his wife, Asha Rani, committed cheating with several persons including Narinder Pal Singh, Malkiat Singh, Kala Singh, Renu Rani, Amarnath, Rajbinder Singh and they charged `7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lacs only) to `8,00,000/-(Rupees eight lacs only) from them to send them or their wards to a foreign country. Even the passport and other relevant documents were also obtained. While dismissing the prayer for anticipatory bail learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in his order dated 28.07.2015 has mentioned that after perusing the police file, it was revealed that the petitioner was also involved in three more cases of similar nature. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation would facilitate the Investigating Agency to bring on record the true facts.

No ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out.

Dismissed.

November 28, 2015 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge SEEMA RANI 2015.12.01 13:43 I attest the accuracy and authencity of the document