Allowed

Vinod Jain v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Oct 2011CRM-M/21964/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a regular bail petition filed for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B IPC. It granted conditional bail upon the petitioner undertaking to create a charge on his declared property, allowing for bail cancellation if other assets are established.

What did the court decide?

Conditional bail granted on undertaking to create a charge on declared property; bail cancellable if other assets are found.

Vinod Jain Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CRM No. 55775 of 2011 in/and CRM-M No. 21964 OF 2011

¶2

Vinod Jain

¶3

v. State of Haryana

¶4

Present: Mr. Rahul Rathore , Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

¶5

Mr. Man Mohan Sikka,DAG, Haryana.

¶6

Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the complainant.

¶7

¶8

CRM No. 55775 of 2011

¶9

CRM allowed. Annexures P-11 and P-12 taken on record.

¶10

CRM-M No. 21964 OF 2011

¶11

This is a petition for regular bail filed in case bearing FIR No. 440 dated 01.12.2010, under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that apart from the very legality of the prosecution in the face of the arbitration clause, the admitted facts are that the son of the petitioner is the accused person and the petitioner has now been in custody for seven months. Learned counsel has further argued that present is a case of Magisterial trial and, therefore, he should be allowed the concession of bail. Apart from that learned counsel has stated that the petitioner has one house in Pipli which he is ready to place under charge for whatever amount may be found due from him ultimately and there is no asset in the name of his son.

¶13

Learned DAG, on instructions from ASI Sunil Dutt, and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant have accepted the factual assertions except in respect of the property which may be owned by

¶14

CRM No. 55775 of 2011 in/and CRM-M No. 21964 OF 2011

¶15

-2-

¶16

the petitioner.

¶17

In the circumstances, in my considered opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to grant the petitioner the concession of conditional bail to the extent that he will undertake to create a charge of what is represented to be his only property. It is made clear that in case the prosecution or the complainant is able to establish that the petitioner owns any other property it would be open to them to move for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶19

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE

¶20

October 21, 2011 sunita

Vinod Jain v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Jain 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

Manju Mittal and Anr. Vs Arun Kumar and Anr.

Harbhagwan Singh @ Bhagwan Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Darshan Singh @ Buta Singh Vs State of Punjab

Neelam Kumar Mishra Vs State of Punjab

Parvinder @ Dhunna Vs State of Haryana