The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that as the recovery of money alleged in the FIR was yet to be effected, it was not a fit case for bail.
Bail application dismissed holding recovery not effected yet.
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.
CRM-M 12004 of 2009
1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Decided on Sept 11,2009.
Ravinder Sood
-- Petitioner
vs.
The State of Punjab and others --Respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr.Swaran Sandhir,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, A.A.G.Punjab, for the respondent/State.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:
The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case registered vide FIR No.38 dated 14.3.2009 under Sections 420/120-B IPC, at Police Station, Haibowal, District Ludhiana.
The aforesaid FIR was registered at the instance of Raj Kaur, wherein it has been stated that she had purchased land measuring 80 square yard situated at Haibowal, Sant Vihar, Churpur Road, Ludhiana from the petitioner. It is alleged that Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as earnest money but instead of executing the sale deed, Special Power of Attorney was handed over to her taking the undue advantage of her
CRM-M 12004 of 2009 2
illiteracy. Later on, remaining amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was also received by the petitioner. He also took Rs.6000, thereafter Rs.20,000/for registration of sale deed and Rs.10,000/- for electricity meter. Thus, a total amount of Rs.5,86,000/- were received by the petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner took possession of the property by inducting tenants on the ground that they have to marry their daughter. The complainant was also paid Rs.10,000/- as rent for two months, but so far, possession of the property has not been returned to the complainant.
Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail which was dismissed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on 27.4.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that one Ranjit Singh had purchased the property in dispute in a bank auction who further sold it to the petitioner by executing power of attorney in his favour on 22.12.2006 which was registered on 26.12.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner executed a special power of attorney in favour of complainant. But since she did not pay the money, therefore, that special power of attorney was cancelled on 28.3.2007. Thus, in nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that he had not received any money from the complainant. Since the petitioner did not implead the complainant as a party in this petition, therefore, on his oral request, she was impleaded as a party as respondent No.3. and notice was sent to her. The complainant has put in appearance in person.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant (in person) that the money stated in the FIR was
3
CRM-M 12004 of 2009
paid to the petitioner but neither the money has been returned nor the possession of the demised premises has been handed over to the complainant so far.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case in which recovery is yet to be effected, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby dismissed.
Sept 11,2009 RR
(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the facts and circumstances of the case constitute a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravinder Sood
The State of Punjab
Raj Kaur
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
