Gurwinder Singh Gill Alias Gurvinder Singh Alias Soni Gill v. State Of Punjab
!
"#$#%& '"
)*
& +,-.-
-
!
" #$% &&&
-*/,0& ' !)*+
, # " " +-+. / 0,
12 seeking anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 65 dated 19.06.2023 registered under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC, 1860 at Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar.
+ , ! ! % 34 !% # $%
!
% # 0 1
(
!!
! % 5
6
% 7! +-+'(
% # 03 (
(8 ! 1 9
! !
'):. 3;
! <
=% ;%# 1/ 0 ;%#12# %:------>?7
# ?
8 !
% % % !%# ( !%#!! " :@' %
6 % %:------>?% # %#
! )-- % !%# %:------>? # # % !# ;%# ! % < !% " ! " % % #% '':---->? # % .*:---->? 34 ! # % ! !# % # ; 5 5 -@'-+-+.
1 . #
# ! #% ! ! 6 !
!%
# 9
!% 8 ( #% # !! #% % ## % %
%:------>? !! ;%#A 6
%++:---->? ;%#( ! #% # 3 ;
! ;%#( !%% ! !
!% !
! % %!
% ! #% #! # !
%! !
"
!% ! %6 # 6! B ( 8 (# % ! ! 0
!1
! % B! !)':)+-4; ! !!
!% !
) = ! ++-C+-+) #61 % ;
" # 0 #$ %
&&1 !%% ! ! " ! ! ! ! !% #!! #% !
% !
5.
Per contra, learned State counsel who has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter, has submitted that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner as he induced the complainant to invest a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- with Mahindra Company by entering into a partnership with him and by representing to him that he would be fetching huge profit along with him as well by taking wrongful gain from the investment for a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- as made by the complainant with the said company. As per the allegations, the petitioner had done so with dishonest intention since the very beginning. (
6.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.
7.
It has been brought to the notice of this Court that no written partnership deed had been executed by the petitioner in favour of the complainant before striking a deal with Mahindra First Choice Company and
before inducing him to invest huge amount of money in the same. The refund of an amount of money Rs. 11,50,000/- out of a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- by the petitioner shows that the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- had been invested by the complainant on his asking. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. For conducting thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. ( ; !# %
! !% ! # ; In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 8.
It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9.
Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. 2
-3 '"
)*