Allowed

Manpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Oct 2009CRM-M/26411/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail petition under Cr.P.C. 1973 for petitioner, a printing press owner, in cheated person case. Court granted bail directing furnishing of bonds, noting petitioner's role limited to printing receipts and relevant documents were already with police, while clarifying no opinion on merits was formed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by furnishing bail bonds to satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Patiala.

Manpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CRM-M 26411 of 2009

¶2

¶3

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .

¶4

Decided on 08.10.2009.

¶5

Manpreet Singh -- Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

State of Punjab --Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶9

Present: Mr.Atul Lakhanpal,Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶10

Mrs.Rajni Gupta,Addl.A.G.Punjab.

¶11

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral)

¶12

This is a petition under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') for regular bail in case FIR No. 439 dated 24.8.2009, registered under Sections 419,420, 465,467,468,471, 34 IPC, at Police Station Sadar, Patiala.

¶13

The FIR is registered on the statement of Gurcharan Singh, who has alleged that about 10/12 days ago, Malkiat Singh son of Gurmukh Singh resident of Bolad Chowk Sanaur with his brother Bhinder Singh came to his house and told him about a scheme having been launched by Punjab Pradesh Congress in the name of Maharani Praneet Kaur, for giving plots to poor persons on cheap rates. They further told the complainant that only Rs.15,000/- is required to be deposited. According to the complainant, he filled a form for getting a

¶14

¶15

CRM-M 26411 of 2009

¶16

plot in the name of his son Kulwinder Singh. The aforesaid persons took the complainant and his son to Patiala Courts where they got some papers/forms signed by his son. In lieu thereof, the complainant had given Rs.15,000/- at the house of Malkiat Singh at Sanaur after getting the money from his brother-in-law Jagar Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of Shajli, Sangrur. It is further alleged that after taking the money, a receipt bearing No.04 dated 21.8.2009 on which Punjab State Congress was written was issued to him. It is also alleged that the aforesaid persons had also taken Rs.1000/- more for preparing papers in the Court and Rs.2000/- on the pretext of giving to the persons who will check the plot. It is also alleged that they told the complainant not to disclose this scheme to any body as the plots are a few. Later on, he came to know that no such scheme has been floated by the Government where poor persons are being given plots and houses at the rate of Rs.15,000/- and in this manner, aforesaid Malkiat Singh and his brother Bhinder Singh along-with 5/6 persons have cheated the complainant by making forged letter pads and other papers in the name of Punjab State Congress.

¶17

The petitioner was arrested on 24.8.2009.

¶18

Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for regular bail which was dismissed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Patiala vide his order dated 01.9.2009.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is running a printing press and is not connected in any manner with the crime alleged to have been committed by the other accused. The allegation, at the most, against the petitioner is that he

¶20

¶21

CRM-M 26411 of 2009

¶22

has printed receipts,out of which receipt No.04 dated 21.8.2009 is alleged to have been issued by Malkiat Singh and his brother Bhinder Singh, who had taken Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant.

¶23

In response, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the offence is of very serious nature in which the investigation is on. She, however, submits that as on today, only allegation against the petitioner is that he had printed receipts which have been issued by Malkiat Singh and his brother Bhinder Singh.

¶24

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of bail. He is in custody since 24.8.2008. The documents which are required from him are already in the custody of the police.

¶25

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Patiala.

¶26

It is, however, made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

¶27

08.10.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge

Manpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpreet 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karanvir Singh Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Ismile@Saheel Vs State of Punjab

Raghubir Parshad Vs Bishamber Dayal

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab

Karamjit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Punjab