Allowed

Subhash v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2012CRM-M/11081/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted the petitioner's anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., making the earlier interim order absolute given that the petitioner had joined the investigation and pose no flight risk.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail is accepted; the interim order of bail is made absolute subject to compliance of conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Subhash Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc.No.M-11081 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision: May 07, 2012.

Subhash

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Haryana

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶10

Present: Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate for for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Manish Deswal, D.A.G. Haryana.

¶12

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.78 dated 14.03.2012 under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Bhupani, District Faridabad.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶16

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 20.04.2012 passed the following order:-

¶17

“Crl.M.No.22669 of 2012

¶18

CRM No.M-11081 of 2012

¶19

¶20

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-11081 of 2012

¶21

Contends that petitioner is owner of 3000 square yards of land, out of which he sold only 400 square yards to Smt. Rekha Singhal. It is further submitted that no agreement was executed by petitioner in favour of complainant and that in fact petitioner had borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from daughter of complainant, who is posted in Haryana Police, Sector 12, Faridabad, and he returned the said amount in installments. He has also placed on record receipt, Annexure P1, regarding making payment of part of the amount on the plea that amount was returned in the installments of Rs.1000/- per day. It is further submitted that at that time daughter of complainant, who is a police official, obtained his signatures on some papers as a security for repayment of loan and later on the same was forged into an agreement. It is further contended that he has sold only 400 square yards of land to Rekha Singhal, complainant, whereas he is owner of 3000 square yards of land.

¶22

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for

¶23

7.5.2012.

¶24

However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶25

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 20.04.2012.

¶26

It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State on the instructions from ASI Phool Kumar that petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation.

¶27

CRM No.M-11081 of 2012

¶28

¶29

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶30

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner Subhash is accepted and order dated 20.04.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶31

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 07, 2012. JUDGE Sachin M.

Subhash v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash 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

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Jagjit Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab

Gora Singh Alias Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Chameli and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Amarjit Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Another

Chaman Lal Vs State of Punjab