Ajay Kukreja v. State Of Punjab And ANR



 




 





!
"#$%$ &'
 (
# )*+


 

  





  '
,-
./
. 
 .


 



!"



"
 #

$ 

%%%  .
+

0-1'
 






 

 
'()


*  
+  
 
 
),)-
.

/*+01 seeking anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.104 dated 27.08.2024 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, 1860 at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana.

)



  " 
"

2 
#

3

  
2



# 


"2




 2
#




 

"

  # 



2

4

" 2

" 2
"

 


# 

 42 
  "
"





  
" 2


  


 3
2
& 
5   




 




2"
 2





 
 
"

# 

 2




 
),67
& "



"



#


2


 
),)68),))


 " 

"2





 "
2" 


2
 #  



2


9, ,, ,,,38





 "

2" 



: 

"2 


2


""


 2
;
  

2




2" 
"2




# 
"
<# !


2" 
#





 !



8# 
"

"2 
#


#

! 


 
4


 "

;

#

!



2

"

 #
2" 
#

!
 2"

 "


 
8
#
!


2" 



7, ,, ,,,38
<



"


2


!

!"













2
 
 !

8 !

  !

2" 


 8



 





2


6 => >7 6,,38


 

"!


"!





2
#" #
 



 

?;
!


 "

 



  


 #
 



 2!



" 



 "  

 
   
@

A
#"
#
2 
!
 
 
)- ,7 ),)'

-






 








  


"





 
2" 


2


"


"!






!


"


" 2
"

 

"22

 "



 
',9

'),

;

!







2


 



   



"""




+ )8"2

+
  !

2"




 

2



 



!






 

2"



 



2" 


!"


 &8

 


#
 


2" 


+ )8"2

+
 

!





<






!

<
" 
 

 :









 !




#

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Learned State counsel and counsel for respondent No.2 are present as they have advance notice of the petition. It is argued by them that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, as he damaged the entire business of the complainant by duping him of huge amount of money. Before registration of FIR, inquiry was conducted into the matter and it was revealed that the petitioner has defrauded and cheated the complainant to cause wrongful loss to him and to gain undue benefit for himself by selling old machines by projecting them as new machines and by charging money at much inflated rates than the actual cost of those machines. His custodial interrogation is required for eliciting information as to the truth of the matter. No extra ordinary or sparing circumstance has even otherwise been made out for the purpose of extending benefit of bail to the petitioner. Therefore, it is

 urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully. 7.

The petitioner is alleged to have cheated the complainant by selling some machines by representing that those were new machines and by charging exaggerated amount of money which was much more than the actual value of those machines. The said machines are also alleged to have been found defective. The petitioner is also alleged to have issued false bills for his wrongful gain. Undisputedly, civil litigation is pending as the complainant has filed a suit for recovery of money as against the petitioner and his firm. However, due to that reason alone, it cannot be stated that the ingredients for commission of under Section 420 of IPC are not attracted since as per the allegations prima facie a case for introducing the complainant to purchase defective machines at inflated rates on the behest of the petitioner has been made out.

It is well settled proposition of law that benefit of pre-arrest bail should not be granted in a routine manner and such concession should be granted in extra ordinary and exceptional circumstances which are not made out from the allegations as levelled against the petitioner. Moreso, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for conducting thorough investigation in the matter.


 

 "  





 


 2


 "



" 2
" 


5

The authorities which have been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are with regard to the quashing of FIRs and not with regard to the bail petitions

3 and are hence inapplicable. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, as per the discussion made above, 
#   
2

"22


2 


"


 2

(

"

2







2 
 

" 






 "



4 .
5


  (
# )*+