Petitioner challenged his arrest via anticipatory bail petition regarding alleged cheating in car sale. Court denied bail as petitioner admitted inability to deposit the amount.
Petitioner directed to deposit amount; otherwise bail denied.
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-31921 of 2008 Date of decision : 26.3.2009.
Paramjit Singh
................ Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab
.................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. A.S. Walia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Sh. K.S. Pannu, Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab.
K.C. Puri, J. (Oral)
As per allegation of the prosecution, the petitioner gave an advertisement regarding sale of Car No. PB- 65 F 9652 make Alto, model 2007, in the name of his brother. The said car was sold to the complainant on payment of Rs.2,41,000/- on 3.2.2008. Later on, it was revealed that said care was hypothecated with the bank.
On the last date of hearing, counsel for the petitioner had stated that he wants to seek instructions whether the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount with the bank. Today counsel for the petitioner has stated at the Bar that petitioner is not ready to deposit the amount as the amount of loan was taken by his brother.
The complainant has been cheated for a huge amount. No
ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
The petition stands dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for anticipatory bail given the allegation of cheating regarding a hypothecated car sale.
Whether the petitioner's inability to deposit the loan amount constitutes a valid ground for anticipatory bail.
Paramjit Singh
State of Punjab
K.C. Puri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
