Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaginder Singh Alias Laddi vs State Of Punjab on 14 October, 2009
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CRM No. M-27688 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-27688 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 14.10.2009
Jaginder Singh alias Laddi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J (oral).
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 406, 420, 506 IPC at Police Station Jaitu, District Faridkot, vide FIR No.20 dated 8th March, 2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not a party to the agreement to sell as is evident from a perusal of agreement to sell, Annexure P-5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a juvenile and thus deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail.
Learned counsel for the State (on the instructions from ASI Sucha Singh, who is present in Court) has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the trolla in question is still in possession of the petitioner and is yet to be recovered. According to the counsel, CRM No. M-27688 of 2009 2 custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the purpose of taking the investigation to its logical end.
The contention of the State counsel that the trolla is with the petitioner, has been refuted by the counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the trolla has been recovered from the financier.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The allegation in the FIR is that the trolla in question was sold for a total sale price of Rs.17,15,000/-. Out of the said amount, Rs.1,63,000/- was paid by the father of the petitioner, who has since expired. The remaining amount is neither being paid by the petitioner to the financier nor the trolla in question is being returned.
Under the circumstances, I find no ground to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
As regards the plea of juvenility, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise the said plea before the court below at the appropriate stage.
Dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE October 14, 2009 'rajpal'