Manmeet Singh vs Union Territory on 13 March, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Manmeet Singh vs Union Territory on 13 March, 2012

Bench: Ranjit Singh

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                           Crl. Misc. No. M-147 of 2012(O&M)
                           Date of decision: March 13, 2012


Manmeet Singh                                                .....Petitioner

                           VERSUS


Union Territory, Chandigarh                                   ....Respondent


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?




PRESENT:            Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate
                    for the petitioner.

                    Mr. Preetpal Singh Guliani, Advocate,
                    for the respondent.

                    Mr. Sukhwinder Singh , Advocate,
                    for the complainant.

                                  ****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

The petitioner concededly has entered into compromise with the complainant and has returned a sum of Rs.3.50 lacs, whereas he has taken only a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs. The petitioner had earlier joined investigations. He was directed to appear before the Investigating officer once again as the investigating agency was keen to find out as to from where the petitioner has obtained fake visa. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has very fairly stated before the Court that the petitioner has no qualms to admit that the visa was prepared by him only.

Crl. Misc. No. M-147 of 2012(O&M) -2-

In my view, the petitioner is seen making a clean breast of misconduct committed by him. He seems to be repentant over the act committed by him. This is well reflected from the compromise reached with the complainant and his conduct in returning the more amount than received by the petitioner. It appears to be a case, where the petitioner is genuinely repentant for his act. The petitioner being a young man, should be encouraged to reform himself. Sending him in custody may make him leave the path of sticking to truth and retard his advancement in life and may make him turn to be a criminal.

In view of above, the order dated 4.1.2012, is made absolute. The petitioner would be at liberty to approach the trial Court for regular bail. Once the challan is presented, trial Court would consider the case for grant of regular bail in the light of order passed by this Court.

March 13, 2012                                  ( RANJIT SINGH )
monika                                               JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court