Virender Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-22710-2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22710-2020 Date of decision: 17.02.2022 Virender Singh

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 08.07.2018 Tripuri, Patiala, 420 read with Section 120-B IPC District Patiala The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. 2.

Vide order dated 02.02.2022, this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 02.02.2022, the petitioner has joined the investigation. 4.

This fact has not been disputed by the learned State counsel on instructions received from SI Pavittar Singh. However, learned State counsel has opposed the bail. He further submits that in case this Court is inclined to give the bail to the petitioner, it should be subject to the strict and stringent conditions. ASHWANI KUMAR 2022.02.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-22710-2020 5.

As per the status report filed by the concerned Dy.S.P., the main accused appeared to be Ramesh Kumar, Tara Chand and Om Prakash. The allegations against the main accused were that they appointed complainant's firm as superstockist of one gas agency in Punjab by the name of Pal Gas Agency and they allured the complainant Dharampal Singh and Charan Singh in connivance with each other and cheated them to huge amount. The role of the petitioner Virender Singh is limited to the extent that he being a Commission Agent, connived with the main accused regarding payment of some outstanding amount. Thus, although the allegations against the main accused appear to be very serious but as far as the petitioner is concerned, there would be no justification to deny him bail at this stage given the role attributed to him in the investigation.

6.

Given the nature of allegations, no pre-trial incarceration is required. Without commenting on the case's merits and the circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner makes a case for anticipatory bail. 7.

Given above, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 02.02.2022, is hereby made absolute. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE February 17, 2022 AK Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No ASHWANI KUMAR 2022.02.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document