Dismissed

Seema Sharma v. Ut of Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jul 2012CRM-M/11500/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that custodial interrogation was required due to the involvement of a huge amount, the petitioner’s prior refusal to comply with bail conditions before the Supreme Court, and allegations of cheating against the husband and wife.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail refused; petition dismissed.

Seema Sharma Vs Ut of Chandigarh — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M 11500 of 2012 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M 11500 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.7.2012

Seema Sharma

...Petitioner

Versus

State (U.T. Chandigarh )

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶10

Present: Mr.JS Bhinder, Advocate with Mr.AS Cheema, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr.Preetpal Singh, APP for UT, Chandigarh Mr.Harish Bansal, Advocate for the complainant

¶12

¶13

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

¶14

By filing the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.20 dated 18.1.2012, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector -26, Chandigarh. Heard.

¶15

There are specific allegation that the petitioner accompanied by her husband that they had received a sum of Rs.25 lacs, out of which 7 lacs were in cash and Rs.18 lacs were transferred through cheque No.25259451 drawn from Bank of India through RTGS. The husband of the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court for grant of pre-arrest bail. He had given undertaking to deposit a sum of Rs.25 lacs and that furnished three

¶16

CRM No.M 11500 of 2012 (O&M) 2

¶17

cheques, which were dishonoured. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.

¶18

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State rep. By the CBI vs. Anil Sharma, reported in (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 187 has held that the custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, a huge amount is involved. The petitioner and her husband are residing together. They have cheated the complainant. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Accordingly, no case is made out to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶19

Dismissed.

¶20

13.7.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE

Seema Sharma v. Ut of Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Sharma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Shamsher Singh @ Shera Vs State of Punjab

Anoop Vs State of Haryana

Rajdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Mahavir @ Veera Vs State of Haryana