Dharambir Sharma vs State Of Haryana on 18 September, 2017

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dharambir Sharma vs State Of Haryana on 18 September, 2017

Bench: Arvind Singh Sangwan

                                          208

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                                     CRM-M-33779-2017 (O&M)
                                                    Date of decision: - 18.9.2017

Dharambir Sharma                                            ......Petitioner

                          versus

State of Haryana                                            ......Respondent


CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present: -   Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Naveen Kaushik, Addl. AG, Haryana.


ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J (ORAL)

Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 72 dated 26.6.2017 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 34 IPC registered at Police Station, Sector 20, Panchkula.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the allegations leveled in the FIR, petitioner after availing the sanctioned term loan and cash credit limit, from the Bank against hypothication of the firm and has transferred the hypothicated stock to some other premises after giving intimation to the concerned Bank.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Jai Karan submits that petitioner has given intimation to the Bank that he has sold away the hypothicated stock of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the intimation given by the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Sector 20, Panchkula that the petitioner and his son Munish Sharma, after obtaining various Pan Cards have obtained Bank loan from different branches in order to deceit the Bank. Though, this intimation given 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2017 13:47:33 ::: CRM-M-33779-2017 (O&M) -2- by the Bank is not directly related to this FIR, however, considering the serious allegations in the FIR that petitioner has sold the hypothicated stock and machinery worth ` 32 lacs without any information to the Bank, no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Dismissed.




                                              (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
18.9.2017                                             JUDGE
preeti

      Whether speaking/reasoned                Yes/No
      Whether Reportable                       Yes/No




                                     2 of 2
                  ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2017 13:47:34 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court