Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 20 January, 2017
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
-1-
CRM-M-38434-2016 and
CRM-M-39628- 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 20.01.2017
1. CRM-M-38434-2016
Hardeep Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
AND
2. CRM-M-39628- 2016
Gurmukh Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. H.S.Brar, Advocate
for the petitioners (in both the petitions).
Mr. Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Manbir Singh, Advocate
for the complainant (in both the petitions).
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
This order shall dispose of CRM-M-38434 of 2016, filed by petitioner-Hardeep Kaur and CRM-M-39628 of 2016, filed by petitioner- Gurmukh Singh under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.177, For Subsequent orders see CRM-M-39628-2016 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2017 13:21:55 ::: -2- CRM-M-38434-2016 and CRM-M-39628- 2016 dated 09.09.2016, registered at Police Station City Kharar, Mohali, under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.
Notice of motion was issued in these petitions. Learned State counsel put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and the complainant also appeared through his counsel. They contested these petitions.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned State counsel as well as learned senior counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that case is based on documentary evidence as there are allegations that after receiving the earnest money, sale deed has not been executed in favour of the complainant, rather the property has been sold to someone else.
In pursuance of the interim orders dated 26.10.2016 passed in CRM-M-38434-2016 and 07.11.2016 passed in CRM-M-39628- 2016, the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are not required for custodial interrogation. Nothing is to be recovered from them. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find merit in these petitions and the same are allowed. The orders dated 26.10.2016 passed in CRM-M-38434-2016 and 07.11.2016 passed in CRM-M-39628- 2016, granting interim bail to the petitioners, are made absolute. However, the For Subsequent orders see CRM-M-39628-2016 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2017 13:21:56 ::: -3- CRM-M-38434-2016 and CRM-M-39628- 2016 petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
20.01.2017 (INDERJIT SINGH)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Note: Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
For Subsequent orders see CRM-M-39628-2016 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2017 13:21:57 :::