Dismissed

Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Aug 2010CRM-M/24034/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. held that as the case was in its initial investigative stage involving alleged forgery of recruitment letters, interim bail would hamper the gathering of crucial evidence through custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

The petition for grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed as there was no merit in the submissions.

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl.Misc.No.M-24034 of 2010

¶3

Date of decision: 19.8.2010

Ravinder Kumar

......Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.

¶10

PRESENT: Mr.S.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. ****

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Petitioner Ravinder Kumar has filed the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.594 dated 23.7.2010 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Hisar, District Hisar

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner contents that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case whereas there is no evidence on record to connect him with the alleged offence. There are no allegations that the petitioner got the alleged test and medical test conducted at Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner has been implicated only on the basis of statements of the co-accused which cannot be relied and the same are not admissible in evidence. Story of the prosecution is highly improbable. Co-accused Rajesh is real brother of the petitioner, whereas Ashok is the maternal uncle and Manoj is his sister's son and it is also not worth believing that the petitioner would cheat them

¶14

Crl.Misc.No.M-24034 of 2010 [2]

¶15

by forging recruitment letters.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is no allegation whether the said test was got conducted by the present petitioner and petitioner is ready to join the investigation.

¶17

I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the contents of the FIR.

¶18

As per allegations in the FIR, some candidates who were seven in number reached to the office of Railway Recruitment Board along with medical reports and joining letters wherein the date of joining at Ajmer Centre RRV Room was mentioned. On inquiry, they told that they had received the above-said documents from a shop near Hisar Railway Station from one Ravinder Kumar. The candidates disclosed that test was taken in one hotel at Ludhiana and they got them medically examined there. An amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was paid to the petitioner by one candidate namely Sanjay Kumar for his appointment. No such letters were ever issued by Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer and a case was registered under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC.

¶19

As per prosecution story, the case was initially registered under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC against seven persons at Ajmer, who reported in the office of Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer along with joining letters as well as against the present petitioner and subsequently, case was registered at Hisar. It came out in the investigation that the petitioner had handed over the

¶20

Crl.Misc.No.M-24034 of 2010 [3]

¶21

joining letters to Sanjay Kumar and other candidates on receipt of money from them.

¶22

Since the case is at initial stage of the investigation and the accused are yet to join investigation, it appears to be a scam where so many persons are involved. The details and other relevant information with regard to collecting of money and forging of documents can be gathered only after custodial interrogation of the petitioner. If the petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory bail at this stage, proper investigation cannot be possible.

¶23

There is no merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

¶24

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶25

August 19, 2010. raghav

Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana

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

M/S Trend Automobiles (P) Ltd. and Ors. Vs M/S Escorts Ltd.

Lakhwinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Niranjan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Baldeep Singh @ Prince Vs State of Punjab

Ujagar Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.