Polu Ram vs State Of Haryana And Another on 21 September, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 5]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Polu Ram vs State Of Haryana And Another on 21 September, 2011

Bench: M.M.S. Bedi

Crl. Misc. No.M-28802 of 2011                                      [1]




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                               CHANDIGARH.

                                 Crl. Misc. No. M-28802 of 2011

                                 Date of Decision: September 21, 2011

Polu Ram

                                        .....Petitioner

            Vs.

State of Haryana and another

                                        .....Respondents


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

                        -.-

Present:-   Mr.H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with
            Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate
            for the petitioner.


                  -.-

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

Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest pursuant to the summons issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, in a complaint under Section 420 IPC filed against the petitioner by his real brother Krishan alleging that the petitioner had induced the complainant to part with a sum of Rs.3.70 lacs on assurance he would be sent to Belgium. Neither the said money has been returned nor the complainant has been sent abroad.

Crl. Misc. No.M-28802 of 2011 [2]

The application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, observing that the offence of cheating being involved, the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in this case has not to be exercised as the case does not involve any extraordinary circumstances.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and found that "summons" have been issued against the petitioner for appearance, but in view of dismissal of his application for pre-arrest bail by Additional Sessions Judge, there is now a reasonable apprehension of arrest in case the petitioner puts in appearance before the summoning Court.

I have also gone through the facts and circumstances of this case. The apprehension of the petitioner that pursuant to the summons for appearance issued against him, in case of his putting in appearance before the Court, he would be arrested appears to be misconceived.

This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the trial Court on October 7, 2011 and move an application for regular bail and offer bail bonds. The trial Court will consider and decide the application on the same day. It is directed that in case the trial Court opts to dismiss the application for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the private complaint, the petitioner will not be arrested for a period of next 10 days in order to enable the petitioner to approach this Court again.

September 21, 2011                                    (M.M.S.BEDI)
 sanjay                                                 JUDGE
 Crl. Misc. No.M-28802 of 2011   [3]

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court