High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/44645/2017allowed

Sushma Singla And ANR. v. State Of Haryana

2018-07-16Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-44645 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 16, 2018 Sushma Singla and another

...Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr.P.S.Virk, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.434 dated 21.10.2017 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC, registered at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Nuh.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that a complaint was filed under Section Vineet Gulati 2018.07.19 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR, whereupon, present FIR was

CRM No.M-44645 of 2017 -2registered. As per the allegations in the FIR, on the basis of blank papers having signatures of complainant, false and forged documents were prepared by the petitioners i.e. agreement to sell. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that civil suit is already pending. The petitioners have already joined the investigation. The case is based on documentary evidence. The petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and 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 petitioners are entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present petition is accepted and the order dated 27.11.2017 granting interim bail to the petitioners, is made absolute.

However, nothing stated above, shall constitute my opinion on merits of the case.

July 16, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2018.07.19 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh