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

Natha Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 October, 2017

Author: Inderjit Singh

Bench: Inderjit Singh

                                                                -1-
CRM-M-32362-2017


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                 CRM-M-32362-2017
                                 Date of Decision: 07.10.2017

Natha Singh

                                                                 ... Petitioner
                                        Versus

State of Punjab                                                           ...
                                                                  Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH


Present:      Ms. Satwinder Kaur, Advocate for
              Mr. Kushaldeep S. Sandhu, Advocate,
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. K.S.Aulakh, AAG, Punjab.

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner-Natha Singh has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.102 dated 07.07.2016, registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana, under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Notice of motion was issued in this case. Learned State counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that the present petitioner is not named in the FIR, rather his daughter, Shinder Kaur, has been named and role is 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2017 14:57:16 ::: -2- CRM-M-32362-2017 attributed to her regarding taking money etc. It is specifically written that `9 lakhs have been paid to Shinder Kaur.

Learned State counsel submits that during the investigation, supplementary statement was recorded and as per the complainant, the amount has been paid to the present petitioner.

In pursuance of the interim order dated 01.09.2017 passed by this Court, the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is not required for custodial interrogation. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by sending him 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 this petition and the same is allowed. The order dated 01.09.2017, granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute. However, the petitioner 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.




07.10.2017                                                    (INDERJIT SINGH)
parveen kumar                                                      JUDGE



Note:           Whether speaking/reasoned                :      Yes
                Whether reportable                       :      No




                                   2 of 2
                ::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2017 14:57:18 :::