The Single Judge rejected the petition for anticipatory bail. The court held that allegations of cheating in a property sale agreement made out no ground for granting relief, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.
No relief granted. Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.M. No. M-11253 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.7.2009.
Nagar Singh
................ Petitioner
vs.
State of U.T., Chandigarh and others
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. I.P. Attri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Sh. R.P. Verma, Advocate for U.T., Chandigarh.
K.C. Puri, J. (Oral)
As per allegation, petitioner and Bodh Raj Saini arranged for the deal regarding sale of a house. An agreement to sell was executed between Lakhbir Singh and the complainant and an amount of Rs.10 lacs was given at the time of agreement and Rs. 2 lacs were later on given to Lakhbir Singh. Rs.10,000/- were stated to be paid as commission. The complainant has been cheated for an amount of Rs.12 lacs. The amount is yet to be recovered.
So, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out.
Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.
chugh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail was warranted given the petitioner's alleged participation in a property deal involving cheating.
Whether the allegations of cheating for an amount of Rs.12 lacs created a ground for granting bail.
Nagar Singh
State of U.T., Chandigarh and others
K.C. Puri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
