Man Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37358-2024 Date of Decision : August 05, 2024 MAN SINGH -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR -RESPONDENTS

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:

Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

*** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1.

Through the instant petition, as instituted under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., a prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 04.07.2024, whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, has granted the concession of anticipatory bail to the respondent No.2, in case FIR No.193 dated 29.04.2024, under Sections 420/406/506/120-B of the IPC, registered at P.S. Sadar Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his beseeching the relief (supra), submits that, in fact, the investigating officer concerned has played a very mischievous role, inasmuch as, he colluded with the respondent No.2/accused and got engaged his own son as the counsel for the respondent No.2/accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned.

DEVINDER YADAV 2024.08.06 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-37358-2024 3.

This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and is of the opinion that the ground (supra) is not a cogent or a reasonable ground, which may constrain this Court to interfere in the order dated 04.07.2024 and cancel the anticipatory bail of the respondent No.2.

4.

Moreover, the allegation(s) levelled against the respondent No.2 is that, he is only a marginal witnesses to the agreement to sell concerned. Furthermore, the complainant has nowhere alleged that he paid any amount to the respondent No.2, therefore, the latter is not a beneficiary of the alleged transaction(s). The learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned had weighed the role assigned to the respondent No.2 while granting him the concession of anticipatory bail and this Court is of the view that the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 is anchored upon reasonable and valid grounds.

5.

In summa, the instant petition is dismissed, being devoid of merits.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) August 05, 2024 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No DEVINDER YADAV 2024.08.06 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment