← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/27235/2019allowed

Jagroop Singh v. State Of Punjab

2019-07-02Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh2 pages

 CRM-M-27235-2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27235-2019 Date of Decision:02.07.2019 Jagroop Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr. S.K.Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner.



    INDERJIT SINGH, J. (Oral)          

 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail in a case FIR No.164 dated 03.11.2018, registered at Police Station Sadar Zira, District Ferozepur, under Sections 420, 379, 409, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B of the IPC.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel has put in appearance 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 gone through the record. From the record, I find that FIR, in the present case, has been got registered by complainant-Darshan Singh. As per the FIR, the PARVEEN KUMAR 2019.07.02 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

  CRM-M-27235-2019 complainant opened a bank account in the Oriental Bank of Commerce and was having an amount of Rs.4,27,000/- in his account. A cheque book containing 25 cheques was also issued to him. As per the allegations, coaccused, Sukhdev Singh in connivance with the other accused, including the present petitioner, has stolen one cheque of the complainant. There is also allegation that a fake bank account was also opened in which the amount of Rs.4,25,000/- of the complainant was transferred/deposited. The said bank account is stated to be in the name of Karanbir Singh. The allegation against the present petitioner is regarding connivance only.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find that the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation and no useful purpose will be served by sending him to custody. Therefore, finding merit in the present petition, the same is allowed. It is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.  02.07.

 !    Note:

    "  #$   

   # %