Jagmeet Singh v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-42723 of 2017 .....

Date of decision:16.01.2019 Jagmeet Singh .....Petitioner v.

State of Punjab .....Respondent ....

Present:

Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Monika Jalota, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for the complainant. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.76 dated 16.09.2017 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Balianwali, District Bathinda.

Notice of motion was issued.

Ms. Monika Jalota, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Navjot Singh, learned Advocate appeared for the complainant and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. As per the allegations in the FIR, Jagmeet Singh-present petitioner has entered into an agreement to sell regarding the land owned by Gram Panchayat and he has received the earnest money of `25 Lakhs. The HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2019.01.17 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc.

No.M -42723 of 2017 [2] present petitioner is the main accused. He has produced the Jamabandi in which he has been shown as owner. The record shows that the Patwari has changed the revenue record showing the owner as Satpal Singh of the land of the Gram Panchayat, who is stated to have exchanged the land and the present petitioner had taken Rs.25 Lakhs by entering into the agreement to sell with the complainant. The petitioner is the beneficiary and he is the main accused, hence, he is required for custodial interrogation. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioner is the main accused and is required for custodial interrogation, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

January 16, 2019.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2019.01.17 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh