Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Ut Chandigarh on 22 January, 2014
CRM-M-28389-2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-28389-2013
Date of decision: 22.1.2014
Kuldeep Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of UT Chandigarh
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
PRESENT: Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, AAP for UT Chandigarh.
R.P. NAGRATH, J. (ORAL)
This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 236 dated 30.7.2013 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC at Police Station Sector- 36, Chandigarh.
When this case was listed on 27.9.2013, following order was passed:-
"Learned State counsel for U.T. Chandigarh submits that report is yet to be obtained with regard to comparison of signatures on the affidavit dated 28.06.2011, on the basis of which transfer of the vehicle was made in the name of purchaser. Kataria Rishu 2014.01.23 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28389-2013 -2-
Learned State counsel seeks time to place on record report of the handwriting expert.
List on 22.01.2014.
Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction. It is also directed that petitioner would keep on joining investigation as and when required. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C."
Learned APP for UT Chandigarh has placed on record the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, dated 23.12.2013 and submits that the signatures on the disputed affidavit were compared with the standard signatures of the complainant and the Expert found that disputed signatures are of the complainant. In the FIR, it is stated that the complainant could not swear the affidavit dated 29.8.2011 as he was in police custody from 16.8.2011 to 2.9.2011. On instructions from SI Sushil Kumar, learned APP for U.T. Chandigarh submits that complainant was not in custody on the said date but was arrested on 2.9.2011. It is further submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation on 15.10.2013 and he is no more required for further interrogation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the sale certificate Annexure P-3, which shows that the vehicle was sold to Vikas Sharma on 28.6.2011.
Kataria Rishu 2014.01.23 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28389-2013 -3-
In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 27.9.2013 is made absolute and the petitioner shall abide by the conditions as enshrined in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
January 22, 2014 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu JUDGE
Kataria Rishu
2014.01.23 11:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document