Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vinod Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 23 May, 2019

Author: Inderjit Singh

Bench: Inderjit Singh

                                                                  -1-
CRM-M-18043-2019


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                          CRM-M-18043-2019
                                          Date of Decision: 23.05.2019


Vinod Kumar
                                                           ... Petitioner
                                        Versus


State of Haryana

                                                          ... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH


Present:     Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

INDERJIT SINGH, J. (Oral)

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.277 dated 27.09.2018, registered at Police Station Adampur, District Hisar, under Sections 420, 406, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978.

Notice of motion was issued in this case. Learned State counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and gone through the record.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2019 02:43:52 ::: -2- CRM-M-18043-2019 From the record, I find that as per the FIR, an amount of more than Rs.11 lakh was given to the Company. The complainant has invested the amount on the inducement that it will be doubled after 150 days. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. He is neither Director nor employee of the Company. His name has come in the disclosure statement of co-accused that he was also in conspiracy with other accused.

In pursuance of the interim order dated 29.04.2019 passed by this Court, the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is not required for custodial interrogation. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by sending him to custody.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find merit in this petition and the same is allowed. The order dated 29.04.2019, granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.




23.05.2019                                                    (INDERJIT SINGH)
parveen kumar                                                     JUDGE



Note:           Whether speaking/reasoned                :      Yes
                Whether reportable                       :      No




                                   2 of 2
                ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2019 02:43:52 :::