Manpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab
!"#$!%&'&"() *% "+!,-
) ./010 0
! """
0-2/3) $%& '
( )
&*&+ , -') ./
012 3 01)
13.02.2024 City Rupnagar, Punjab 406 and 420 of IPC, 1860 &
2( 2 43
5 , -
(./
(
( 2( 2 (
2 2(
6!
2( ( 2
2(
2( (
2 2(#
72 8
22 ( (
2( 2( 92
2 2(
29
2( (
2 + 6 ( ( : ( 2( 2
2
( ( 2
( (
3 3
' 8 2 &;;;**<3 (
2
2 =*=***<3 1 2 2(
2 6
2 2
1
(
2
2 ( >
*?
=* &*&$ + (
(
( 2
8 (
'
(
=;
== &*=@ =* *;
&*&=
'
(
(
(
( 8 (
( =* *;
&*&$ ( 2( (
22( 8 (
2: ) ( 2
8 ( 2 2(
4
=* *;
&*&=
9 3 4.
Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by him that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. Admittedly, he along with the coaccused Rahul Basra had been running the business of society. He received hard earned money of the complainant and other victims by inducing them and alluring them on the pretext that they would be fetching huge profits.
Huge amount of money is alleged to have been usurped by him thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Therefore, it is urged that he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.
5.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.
6.
2 (
(
22( ( 1 2(
2
( =* *;
&*&= 8 2 (
2
2
2
((
(( 2 ! 2
'
3 3 )
( (
( 2
8 2 2( 0
2
2
2
2 1
:
( 2
: 4
2 ( 4 1 9
2 9
(
4 9
12
( 2 2 @ 1 2 9 2 %
2 2
(
4 05
*% "+!,-