← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/45272/2018dismissed

Ravinder Singh Mann v. State Of Punjab

2018-11-21Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-45272 of 2018 Date of decision:21.11.2018 Ravinder Singh Mann

...Petitioner

v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Sharda, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.04 dated 24.8.2018 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC at Police Station NRI Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Rural).

Notice of motion has been issued in this case. Mr. Pawan Sharda, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has appeared on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that as per the FIR, Rajinder Kaur Mann HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2018.11.22 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-45272 of 2018 [2] got registered complaint against Ravinder Singh Mann by stating that the present petitioner misused the power of attorney and sold about 44 Kanals of land along with house etc. Even there is allegation that some property has been sold by present petitioner to his wife. There is no document on record to show the payment of sale consideration to the complainant by the present petitioner. As per allegations, 9 sale deeds were executed by the petitioner from 2012 to 2016.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case, I find that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, therefore, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

November 21, 2018.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2018.11.22 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh