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 7, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kirpal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 May, 2015

Author: Mahesh Grover

Bench: Mahesh Grover

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                   CHANDIGARH


                                               Crl.Misc.No.M-14556 of 2015

                                               Date of decision : 7.5.2015

                     Kirpal Singh
                                                                 ....Petitioner
                                    Versus

                     State of Punjab
                                                                 ...Respondent

                     CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
                                      ....

                     Present : Mr.NPS Mann, Advocate
                               for the petitioner.
                                             .....

                     MAHESH GROVER, J.

This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying for release of the petitioner on bail in terms thereof in case FIR No.24 dated 5.2.2015 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC registered at Police Station Division No.6, Industrial Area, Ludhiana.

The petitioner would plead false implication. In fact this is a second FIR against him. In the previous FIR bearing No.4 dated 3.1.2015 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana City there were allegations that the petitioner had forged the stamp papers in order to get a sale deed executed. These matters are serious in nature and the present FIR also seems to be an DALJIT SINGH 2015.05.11 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.Misc.No.M-14556 of 2015 -2- offshoot of the earlier FIR. It is also not in dispute that the pre- arrest bail of the petitioner has been declined in the earlier case. The learned trial court was right in noticing that the matter requires deeper probe when prima facie the petitioner seems to be involved in the commission of crime. Section 438 Cr.P.C. is intended to protect a person when there is a possibility of his false implication but not for those who are prima facie involved and are in conflict with law.

Petition dismissed.


                     7.5.2015                                  (MAHESH GROVER)
                     dss                                           JUDGE




DALJIT SINGH
2015.05.11 16:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document