Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 January, 2025
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003489
210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.45997 of 2024
Date of decision: 13th January, 2025
Rajinder Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. APS Tung, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Deol, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent/State.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is seeking the concession of bail under Section 482 BNSS in case FIR No. 0062, dated 14.08.2024, Police Station Garhdiwal, District Hoshiarpur, under Sections 406, 420 IPC.
2. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 16.09.2024, while noticing the following submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted the concession of interim bail to the petitioner and asked him to join investigation.
"The FIR was lodged at the instance of Ram Dass wherein it is alleged that one Kirpal Singh had entered into an agreement dated 30.04.2021 with one Sukhjit Singh so as to purchase land from Sukhjit Singh. On the basis of said agreement, Kirpal Singh further entered into agreement dated 19.07.2021 with complainant's wife namely Gurbax Kaur and received an amount of Rs.6.70 lakhs as earnest 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2025 02:28:29 ::: CRM-M No.45997 of 2024 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003489 2 money. Subsequently, more amounts were also allegedly taken by Kirpal Singh totaling Rs.9.20 lakhs, but instead of getting the sale deed executed in favour of Gurbax Kaur, the aforesaid Kirpal Singh got the sale deed executed in favour of his son Rajinder Singh (petitioner).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to execute the sale deed in favour of Gurbax Kaur and in the alternate he is willing to return the total amount whatever he had received by him."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 16.09.2024, the petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency.
4. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Balbir Singh, does not dispute the factum of the petitioner having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions submits that the petitioner is not required for further investigation much less for his custodial interrogation.
5. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed and the interim order dated 16.09.2024 is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./Section 482(2) BNSS. Needless to say, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail granted to him, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail granted to him.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
January 13, 2025
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 15-01-2025 02:28:30 :::