Dismissed

Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Mar 2009CRM-M/15701/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition for pre-arrest bail, this single-judge bench considered allegations of false impersonation and cheating. It declined to grant bail, holding that a fresh re-investigation and serious prima facie involvement precluded the existence of extra-ordinary circumstances necessary for anticipatory relief.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail refused; petition dismissed.

Pritam Singh Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Cr.Misc. NO. M 15701 of 2008

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Cr.Misc. NO. M 15701 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION 18.3.2009

Pritam Singh

......PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Punjab

......RESPONDENTS

PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate Mr. PS Sidhu, Addl. A.G.Punjab Mr. HS Saggu, Advocate

¶11

M.M.S.BEDI,J.

¶12

The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered at the instance of Ruldu Singh alleging that his son Baldev Singh was posted as XEN in the Public Health Department (Water Supplied Department) and the Vigilance Department had registered a false against him on 24.3.2004. The petitioner had persuaded the complainant to part with a total sum of Rs.3.25 lacs with a promise that on account of his good relations with higher officials in the Public Health Department, he would manipulate the situation in such a manner that sanction would not be granted by the Government for the prosecution of his son.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the FIR has been registered after the petitioner superannuated on 31.10.2004 as Deputy Director from the Industries Department, Punjab. It is claimed that the petitioner had never visited Mansa in his whole life and that he had also submitted an application for re-investigation of the matter, in which inquiry had been initiated.

¶14

Learned State counsel has informed that the application filed

¶15

Cr.Misc. NO. M 15701 of 2008

¶16

¶17

by the petitioner has been considered and the matter has been re-looked into and it has been found that the allegations of the complainant are not false.

¶18

Learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed the petition for pre-arrest bail.

¶19

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the subsequent inquiry having again been taken in hand, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case on account of any oblique motive on the part of the complainant or the police. The petitioner might have a good defence, as contended by the counsel for the petitioner, but prima facie the involvement of the petitioner in the offence cannot be ruled out. No extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail in view of the seriousness of the allegations.

¶20

The petition is dismissed.

¶21

Nothing said in the order will prejudice the rights of the petitioner to seek regular bail or settle the matter with the complainant.

¶22

March 18 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE

Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Inder Singh Tut Vs State of Punjab

Akash Jain Vs State of Punjab

Mangat Ram Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Labh Singh Vs State of Punjab

Tarwinder Kaur Alias Talwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab