Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharminder Pal @ Ramji And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 30 January, 2020
Author: Vivek Puri
Bench: Vivek Puri
206-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-54779-2019
Date of decision: 30.01.2020
DHARMINDER PAL@ RAMJI AND ANR.
.
..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI
Present: Mr. R.K.Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2 .
****
VIVEK PURI,J. (ORAL)
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record.
In CRM-M-54779 on 20.012.2019 following order was passed:-
"Notice of motion for 30.01.2020. To be heard along with CRM-M- 52032-2019.
In the meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the Investigating Officer. In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to interim bail in the present case till the next date of hearing on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to his satisfaction. The petitioners are also directed to abide by all the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
At this stage, Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, Advocate, who is present in the Court, has filed power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.2. The same 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2020 02:16:36 ::: CRM-M-54779-2019 -2- is taken on record. Copy of the petition be supplied to him during the course of the day.".
Precisely, the allegations against the petitioners are to the effect that they had extracted a sum of Rs. 21 lacs from the complainant on the false pretext of sending him abroad.
It has been stated that on 13.09.2017, the complainant had himself lodged a report with regard to the loss of his passport. The alleged transaction took place as back as in the year 2016 and the complainant remained silent for a period of about two and a half years and the FIR has been lodged only on 13.05.2019.
It has not been disputed by learned State counsel that the petitioner has joined investigation in pursuance of interim direction issued by the Court. It has also been stated by the learned State counsel that an enquiry in the matter on the application of the petitioner is still pending with SP, Headquarter.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, sufficient exceptional circumstances are made out to extend the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has joined investigation, the order dated 20.12.2019, granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.
However, the petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. He shall also join investigation as and when called upon to do so.
The petition stands disposed of.
30.01.2020 (VIVEK PURI)
renubala JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2020 02:16:37 :::