Dismissed

Gagan Gupta v. Ut of Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Aug 2010CRM-M/24257/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petition regarding allegations of impersonating an advocate to harass an opposing counsel was denied, emphasizing the petitioner's lack of cooperation during investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; no case made out for grant of concession.

Gagan Gupta Vs Ut of Chandigarh — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl.M.No. M-24257/2010(O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl.M.No. M-24257/2010(O&M)

¶4

Date of decision: 20.8.2010.

¶5

Gagan Gupta

¶6

....................Petitioner

¶7

¶8

State of U.T.

¶9

.....................Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh

¶11

Present: Mr.Sandeep Aggarwal,Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral)

¶13

Prayer under Section 438 Cr.PC is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.154 dated 3.8.2010 under Sections 417,419, 467, 469, 34 IPC, PS Industrial Area,Chandigarh.

¶14

The allegations against the petitioner are that he had impersonated an Advocate and gave an advertisement in “The Tribune” regarding sale of his Santro Car. It was also advertised that Steno/Peon was/were required for his office, therefore, interview will be conducted in Lawyers Chamber no.21, High Court,Chandigarh.

¶15

It is not disputed that during the investigation, while

¶16

Crl.M.No. M-24257/2010(O&M) 2

¶17

examining the footage recorded by CCTV cameras installed at “The Tribune” office petitioner alongwith his co-accused were identified while they had visited the said office and booked the offending advertisement in the name of complainant-Advocate. It is also not in dispute that the complainant Advocate is appearing against the interest of accused-petitioner in the case relating to the custody of his child before this Court. It is also true that the aforesaid Chamber No.21 belongs to an Advocate of identical name.

¶18

It is further alleged that the complainant-Advocate since early morning (on the date of publication of advertisement) had received more than 100 telephone calls during the day with regard to sale of his car and he alongwith the other Advocate with identical name were confronted by innumerable candidates desirous of seeking appointment as Steno/Peon. It is stated that the motive was to make every effort to harass the complainant-Advocate on account of his being a counsel of the opposite party.

¶19

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the learned trial Court has rightly declined the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is apparent from the order that the petitioner, by giving evasive replies to the queries put by Investigators, is not cooperating in the investigation . In view of the allegations, it is felt that such an attempt by an educated person to harass an Advocate appearing against him cannot be taken leniently as the same would almost border on an attempt to interfere with the administration of

¶20

Crl.M.No. M-24257/2010(O&M) 3

¶21

justice. In my opinion, for a thorough investigation custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Accordingly, no case for grant of concession of anticipatory bail is made out.

¶22

Dismissed.

¶23

20.8.2010 joshi

¶24

(Jaswant Singh) Judge

Gagan Gupta v. Ut of Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gagan Gupta v. Ut of 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

Anil & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Bhura Khan and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Khalil Mohd. Vs State of Haryana

Taj Mohammad Vs State of Punjab

Naveen Malhotra Vs State of Haryana

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.