Allowed

Mahesh Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Nov 2011CRM-M/17621/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a criminal case alleging cheating. The court noted the existence of a separate money dispute between the parties initiated under the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding prima facie a genuine dispute and no necessity for custodial interrogation. Bail was granted subject to joining the investigation and not tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner, interim order made absolute subject to joining investigation as required and not tampering with evidence.

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-17621 of 2011.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl. Misc. No.M-17621 of 2011. Date of decision: November 02, 2011.

Mahesh Kumar

.. Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana.

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI

¶10

PRESENT

¶11

Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate,

¶12

for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms.Shalini Attri, DAG., Haryana.

¶14

Mr.N.S.Behgal, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶15

M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL).

¶16

Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered on the basis of a complaint filed by Ram Kumar alleging that the petitioner had taken a sum of ` 4,80,000/- as per the complaint with a promise to send the brother of the complainant to Japan but instead he got a VISA for Hong Kong for the brother of the complainant.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier one Brij Pal had filed a similar complaint against the petitioner as well as against the complainant and his two brothers alleging that they had induced complainant to go abroad and have taken money from him to send him to Canada.

¶18

. ..1

¶19

Crl. Misc. No.M-17621 of 2011.

¶20

It is contended that the complainant in the present case was a co-accused with the petitioner. After having managed to connive with Brij Pal, Ram Kumar has filed the present FIR.

¶21

Counsel for the complainant has intervened to contend that the petitioner is being rightly prosecuted.

¶22

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the complainant and the State counsel.

¶23

After going through the various facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that there has been a money transaction between the petitioner and Brij Pal regarding which proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, were initiated by the petitioner against Brij Pal. A copy of the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed by the petitioner against Brij Pal has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. The petitioner having already joined investigation and there being prima facie a dispute regarding money transaction between the parties, it does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation.

¶24

The petition is allowed and the interim order dated 03.06.2011, is hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner will join investigation as and when required and that he will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation, in any manner.

¶25

November 02, 2011. rka

¶26

. ..2

Mahesh Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhwinder Singh @ Kala Vs State of Haryana

Bakshish Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rakesh Vs State of Haryana

Gurpreet Singh @ Gora Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jaswinder Singh @ Monu Vs State of Punjab and Another