Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Avinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 March, 2014

Author: M.M.S. Bedi

Bench: M.M.S. Bedi

                                     CRM-M-34482 of 2013                                 -1-

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                        CHANDIGARH

                                                       CRM-M-34482 of 2013
                                                       Date of Decision: 28.03.2014

              Avinder Singh
                                                                           ......Petitioner
                                                 Vs.

              State of Punjab
                                                                         .........Respondent

              CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

              Present:         Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate,
                               for the petitioner.

                               Mr. C.S. Brar, D.A.G., Punjab.

                               Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate,
                               for the complainant.

                               Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate,
                               for India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.
                                      *****

              M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner seeks concession of regular bail in case FIR No. 57 dated 05.05.2012, under Sections 420, 447, 467, 468, 471 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur at the instance of Ravinder Kaur alleging that her husband is a practicing advocate in District Court, Sangrur. She had been sold a house by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 29.05.2009 and possession was also delivered. The grievance of the complainant is that she had been cheated by the petitioner as previous registration was not shown on the pretext that it had been lost. In this context, the petitioner has sworn a statement. On 21.02.2012, the official of Finance Company namely India Bulls Housing Finance Limited contacted the complainant and informed that the petitioner had taken a loan against the house which had been sold to the complainant. Nitin 2014.04.03 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-34482 of 2013 -2- The Finance Company had issued a notice to the petitioner to repay the amount.

It is not out of place to observe here that the petitioner had been granted concession of interim bail vide order dated 24.10.2013, passed by this Court on his assurance that he is ready to repay the amount taken by him along with his son in the year 2007. On 07.11.2013 learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the petitioner had made payment of `18,46,322/- against the loan of `23,50,000/- besides making one time settlement by paying a sum of `15,00,000/- including the interest within a period of one year. In continuation of said admission, counsel for the petitioner has produced a demand draft worth `5,00,000/- which has been reluctantly accepted by counsel for the India Bulls Housing Finance Limited claiming that the huge amount is due towards the Finance Company.

Learned counsel for the complainant has intervened to oppose the application for bail.

It is also not out of place to observe here that the petitioner had offered to repurchase the property by repaying the amount of sale consideration to the complainant but the said offer has earlier been declined. Even today, learned counsel for the complainant has declined the said offer, saying that the property purchased by the complainant at present is worth `1,25,00,000/-, whereas, she purchased the said property for a sum of `35,00,000/- in the year 2009.

Taking into consideration the above said circumstances, it will be debatable during the trial whether the petitioner had an intention to cheat from the very inception of the transaction. It will also be debatable whether the purchaser of the property being wife of an Advocate had taken due care Nitin 2014.04.03 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-34482 of 2013 -3- to ascertain the encumbrances against the property. Taking into consideration the offer of the petitioner made on 07.11.2013 in the Court, in the interest of justice, this petition is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate subject to deposit of a bank draft worth `10,00,000/- as promised by the petitioner himself through his counsel on 07.11.2013. Any amount paid by the petitioner is subject to the rendition of accounts and rights which are yet to be determined qua the Finance Company.

(M.M.S. BEDI) JUDGE March 28, 2014 nitin Nitin 2014.04.03 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh