Allowed

Vishal Sharma & Ors. v. U.,T. Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jul 2010CRM-M/17471/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Chandigarh granted anticipatory bail to petitioners in a case involving property dispute and fabricated evidence allegations. Court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and made interim bail order absolute subject to statutory conditions.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 30.6.2010 granting interim bail made absolute subject to compliance of conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Vishal Sharma & Ors. Vs U.,T. Chandigarh — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Criminal Misc.No. M- 17471 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No. M- 17471 of 2010 Date of decision:- 05.7.2010

¶5

Vishal Sharma and others

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of U.T. Chandigarh

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present:Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Standing Counsel for U.T. Chandigarh.

¶13

Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 120 dated 08.6.2010, under Sections 365, 448, 452 , 380,506,34 IPC and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

¶17

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 30.6.2010, passed the following order:-

¶18

“Heard.

¶19

Notice of motion.

¶20

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Gautam Kaile, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh, who is present in Court, accepts notice.

¶21

Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate, who is also present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the complainant.

¶22

Criminal Misc.No. M- 17471 of 2010

¶23

-2-

¶24

Counsel for the petitioners is directed to supply copies of the paper-book to learned counsel for the respondents during the course of the day.

¶25

Adjourned to 5.7.2010.

¶26

However, petitioners are directed to join the investigation on 2.7.2010 and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶27

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have joined the investigation in pursuance of the said order.

¶28

It has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent-State that the petitioners have joined the investigation. However, learned counsel for the State as well learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application.

¶29

Initially the property in dispute was owned by Jiwandeep Singh Ghai. The same was purchased by the present petitioners vide registered sale deed for rupees three crores and as per terms of sale deed, vacant possession was given to the present petitioners. Loan was also taken by the present petitioners from the Punjab National Bank. However, prior to the said sale deed there was an agreement in favour of the present complainant and Rs.1.5 crore was given as earnest money. In the said agreement as well there is recital that the possession was handed over to the complainant. The allegations are that at the time of execution of the sale deed, possession was taken by the present petitioners forcibly from the servant of complainant. A civil suit regarding property in dispute is also pending. However, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that now the possession has been taken by the complainant through police and the four co-accused, from whom possession was taken by the complainant, have been arrested by the police and released on regular bail by the trial Court.

¶30

Hence, in view of these facts, custodial interrogation of the

¶31

Criminal Misc.No. M- 17471 of 2010

¶32

-3-

¶33

petitioners is not required.

¶34

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the petitioners are likely to abscond or that they they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶35

Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 30.6.2010, granting interim bail to the petitioners Vishal Sharma, Chander Mohan and Smt. Vinod Sharma, is, hereby, made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶36

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶37

July 05, 2010 vj

¶38

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

Vishal Sharma & Ors. v. U.,T. Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Sharma & Ors. v. U.,T. Chandigarh

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

(O&M) J K Inds. Vs the Sugar Corp.

Parminder Singh @ Harpat Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Amandip Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rozwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jakir Hussain Vs State of Haryana

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab