Partly allowed

Khursheed Ahmed v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2012CRM-M/16527/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of three connected bail petitions arising from an FIR alleging property fraud and forgery. Anticipatory bail was granted to Bira Ram, a witness to alleged agreements, on specific conditions. The applications of Ram Kishan and Khursheed Ahmad were rejected as they were directly implicated in executing multiple agreements and sale deeds.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Bira Ram on conditions; anticipatory bail declined to Ram Kishan and Khursheed Ahmad.

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

¶1

Crl.M.No. M-16527 of 2012 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl.M.No. M-16527 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.9.2012

¶4

... Khursheed Ahmad ................Petitioner vs. State of Haryana .................Respondent 2) Crl.M.No. M-17203 of 2012 (O&M) ... Ram Kishan ................Petitioner vs. State of Haryana .................Respondent 3) Crl.M.No. M-17362 of 2012 (O&M) ... Bira Ram ................Petitioner vs. State of Haryana

¶5

.................Respondent

¶6

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri

¶7

Present: Sh. Balkar Singh Advocate for the petitioner (in Crl.M.No. M-16527 of 2012)

¶8

Sh. A.K. Khubbar, Advocate for the petitioner (in Crl.M.No. M-17203 of 2012)

¶9

Sh. Ajit Atri, Advocate for the petitioner (in Crl.M.No. M-17362 of 2012)

¶10

Sh. Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

¶11

Crl.M.No. M-16527 of 2012 -2-

¶12

K.C. Puri, J.

¶13

Vide this order, I intend to dispose of Crl.M.No.M- 16527 of 2012 titled as Khursheed Ahmed vs. State of Haryana, Crl.M.No.M- 17203 of 2012 titled as Ram Kishan vs. State of Haryana and Crl.M.No.M- 17362 of 2012 titled as Bira Ram vs. State of Haryana, as all these petitions arise out of same FIR.

¶14

As per allegation of the prosecution, Ram Kishan entered into agreement to sell with the complainant on 23.7.2010 for a consideration of 36 lacs and received 25 lacs as earnest money. The date of execution of sale deed was fixed as 31.12.2011. Bira Ram was witness of the said agreement to sell. It is further alleged that said Ram Kishan again entered into agreement to sell with one Jagdev Singh on 11.4.2011 and received `25 lacs as earnest money. It is alleged that Bira Ram is also witness to that agreement.

¶15

The allegation of the prosecution is also that Ram Kishan executed sale deed on 23.11.2011 in favour of Khursheed Ahmad and Sher Jang and it is alleged that these persons have connived together and forged the agreement of earlier date i.e. 30.3.2010, inspite of injunction order.

¶16

So far as applicant – Bira Ram is concerned, the allegation against him is that he is witness to the two agreements.

¶17

Learned State counsel is fair enough to concede that there is no evidence collected till today that he has share in the money.

¶18

So, the application for grant of anticipatory bail to Bira Ram

¶19

Crl.M.No. M-16527 of 2012 -3-

¶20

stands accepted and the order dated 4.6.2012 passed by this Court in Crl.M.No. M-17362 of 2012 is made absolute. Petitioner Bira Ram is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on following conditions:-

¶21

i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation, as and when required, by the police;

¶22

ii)that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

¶23

iii)that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court and shall surrender his passport, if any.

¶24

So far as accused – Ram Kishan and Khursheed Ahmad are concerned, in my view, they are not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Ram Kishan has executed two agreement and one sale deed. It is alleged that Khursheed Ahmad was party to executing the ante dated agreement dated 30.3.2010.

¶25

So, in these circumstances, application for grant of anticipatory bail of Ram Kishan and Khursheed Ahmad stands declined.

¶26

6.9.2012 chugh

¶27

( K.C. Puri ) Judge

¶28

Crl.M.No. M-16527 of 2012 -4-

Khursheed Ahmed v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khursheed Ahmed 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

Mandeep Kumar @ Honey Vs State of Punjab

Balwant Singh and Ors. Vs Anoop Singh and Anr.

Kanwarjit Singh Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Others

Ramjan Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Maninder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ram Kishan Vs State of Haryana