Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh on 10 July, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.M-16455 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-16455 of 2013
Date of Decision:- 10.07.2013
Joginder Singh
.....Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of Chandigarh
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl. PP,
for U.T. Chandigarh.
Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Joginder Singh son of Prithi Singh, has directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with other main accused Kapil Bansal, Bharti Bansal and others, vide FIR No.441 dated 01.09.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the CRM No.M-16455 of 2013 2 entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on May 17, 2013:-
"Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the petitioner has identified the right person on the agreement to sell dated 03.02.2012 (Annexure P-4). The argument is that all other allegations of cheating and forgery are assigned to main co-accused of the petitioner (non-petitioner). Since no indicated offences are made out, so, the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant, in the instant case, in order to wreak vengeance.
Heard.
Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 24.05.2013. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to his satisfaction."
5. At the very outset, on the instructions from SI Charanjit Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. It is not a matter of dispute the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR. Subsequently, he was stated to have identified the right person on the agreement to sell dated 03.02.2012 (Annexure P-4). Moreover, all the allegations of cheating etc. are assigned to main accused Kapil Bansal and his wife Bharti Bansal and their other co-accused (non-petitioners). No other specific role or overt-act is attributed to the petitioner. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of CRM No.M-16455 of 2013 3 Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.
6. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court, by virtue of order dated May 17, 2013, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
7. However, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency, failing which, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this respect.
Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail only.
July 10, 2013 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE