High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/37069/2019disposed of

Sunder Lal v. State Of Haryana

2021-10-06Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh2 pages

CRM-M-37069-2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.37069 of 2019 Date of Decision:06.10.2021 SUNDER LAL ......Petitioner Vs STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present:Mr.Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. S.K Verma, Advocate for the complainant.

**** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral) Petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.1014 dated 16.08.2019 registered under Sections 406, 420 of IPC, at Police Station Jagadhri City, District Yamuna Nagar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a loan of Rs.5 lacs was advanced to complainant vide receipt dated 05.07.2019. Complainant re-paid the loan only to the extent of Rs.2 lacs from her bank account No.7512158687 in favour of the petitioner on 20.07.2019. Thereafter, instead of paying the remaining amount, the complainant got the present FIR lodged. Notice of motion was issued on 04.09.2019 and interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner. Learned State counsel submits that though the petitioner has joined the investigation but he has not facilitated AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2021.10.07 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-37069-2019 the recovery of the amount in question.

At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the bail on the ground that complainant has denied her signatures on the receipt with the plea that her signatures were obtained on a blank paper. The perusal of receipt Annexure P2 would show that the receipt was executed on 05.07.2019 in the presence of witnesses namely Abhishek and Pooja. Even if the assertion and denial made by the parties, at this stage are to be considered, the same would fall under the domain of interpretation of documents and would be adverted to by the Court at the relevant stage. Since the petitioner has joined the investigation and the recovery of amount (if any) would be subject to the adjudication by the Court.

In view of stand taken by the parties, I deem it appropriate to confirm the order dated 04.09.2019. Petitioner shall keep on joining the investigation as and when required to do so and he shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Petition stands disposed of.

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) 06.10.2021 JUDGE Amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2021.10.07 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document