High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/7158/2015dismissed

Tarsem Singh v. State Of Punjab

2015-03-24Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon2 pages

CRM M-7158 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No. 9224 of 2015 in CRM M-7158 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.03.2015 Tarsem Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

Mr. R.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the complainant. RAJAN GUPTA J.

CRM No. 9224 of 2015 This is an application for placing on record ration card of the complainant as annexure P1. Application is allowed as prayed for. Document is taken on record.

CRM M-7158 of 2015 This is a petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 6 dated 25.01.2015 under Sections 355, 347, 365, 388, 494, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC at Police Station Malout Sadar, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that no offence is made out against the petitioner. A false story has been concocted by the complainant. Petitioner is AJAY KUMAR 2015.03.25 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM M-7158 of 2015 ready to cooperate with the investigating agency. Thus, he may be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail.

Plea has been opposed by learned State counsel. According to him, petitioner has cheated the complainant of `43 lacs and taken away 23 tolas to gold. Thus, his custodial interrogation is necessary.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. FIR was lodged on the complaint of one Rasala Singh. He alleged that Tarsem Singh alongwith co-accused had taken him to Bathinda where he was administered some intoxicant substance in his tea. According to him, he was cheated by the accused to the tune of `43 lacs. His gold ornaments weighing 231⁄2 tolas were also taken away. Petitioner is stated to have acted in connivance with accused Jyoti Rani. According to stand of the State, recovery is yet to be effected from the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that no case for grant of discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail is made out. Dismissed.

March 24, 2015 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE AJAY KUMAR 2015.03.25 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document