The single judge dismissed the petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as the nature of allegations involving cheating and duping the complainant precluded bail without arrest.
Prayer for pre-arrest bail dismissed; petitioner not entitled to bail.
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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-10565 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: April 21, 2011
Satpal
…..Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr.Ravi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Vikas Malik, AAG, Haryana
..
RAJAN GUPTA, J. : (Oral)
This is a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under section 420 IPC vide FIR No.23 dated 22.2.2011 at police station Gulha, District Kaithal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. According to him, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. He is, thus, entitled to pre-arrest bail.
Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. According to him, petitioner is involved in two other cases of similar nature. He contends that petitioner and co-accused had promised to send son of the complainant to Italy. Instead, a visa for Peru was provided to the complainant. The complainant, however, asked the petitioner to return his money which he flatly refused.
Crl.Misc.No.M-10565 of 2011
- 2
Heard.
It is evident that allegation against the petitioner is of having duped the complainant of Rs.4 lacs with the promise of sending his son abroad. It appears that instead of sending son of complainant abroad, some visa was provided to the complainant for a different country.
In view of nature of allegations, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to prearrest bail.
Dismissed.
April 21, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of cheating and false implication.
Whether custodial interrogation is required given the nature of the allegations of cheating.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satpal
State of Haryana
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
