Dismissed

Rishi Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jul 2012CRM-M/19026/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition sought modification of an earlier bail refusal order based on a new defence that the petitioner did not sign the agreement allegedly forged by his mother-in-law. The court dismissed the plea, holding that without acknowledging the signature issue previously, the new defence does not constitute a changed fact warranting bail. Pre-arrest bail was denied.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail was denied. The petition was dismissed.

Rishi Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-19026 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-19026 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 5^th , 2012

Rishi Kumar

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

.... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶14

Rishi Kumar, the petitioner has brought this second petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.634 dated 27.7.2011 at Police Station City, Hisar, for an offence punishable under sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. The first petition for bail brought by the petitioner has been dismissed by this court vide order dated 16.1.2012.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this petition has been brought on changed fact situation. According to him, it is a case where the mother-in-law of the petitioner is alleged to have agreed to sell a plot to the complainant for a consideration of 20,50,000/- and received a sum of 2,00,000/- as earnest money without

¶16

Crl. Misc. No.M-19026 of 2012

¶17

¶18

having any title thereto. The petitioner was alleged to have been an attesting witness of the document. According to him, the petitioner has learnt that report of handwriting expert has come to the investigating officer to the effect that the signatures on the agreement are not of the petitioner. According to him, in these circumstances, the petitioner would not be liable in any way in the matter.

¶19

It is common knowledge that the science of identification of handwriting is not a perfect science. There is possibility of error on the part of handwriting expert in giving his opinion. It is a fact that the petitioner did not claim in the previous petition that he did not sign the agreement. Hence, he cannot take the benefit of this circumstance.

¶20

Therefore, I do not find any changed fact situation in this case on the basis of which the petitioner can be held entitled to bail. The petition is, consequently dismissed.

¶21

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶22

July 5^th , 2012 som

Rishi Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishi 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

D.S Jaglan Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Niranjan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Parminder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Sukhpal Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Jamil Vs State of Haryana