Allowed

Parminder Singh v. Ut of Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2012CRM-M/1999/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed bail to the petitioner, Parminder Singh, in a cheating case alleging the use of a fake cheque. The court noted the petitioner's limited role and upcoming marriage, granting bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Grant of regular bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh.

Parminder Singh Vs Ut of Chandigarh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-1999 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 23, 2012 .

Parminder Singh

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of U.T. Chandigarh.

¶7

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶8

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

¶9

Present: Ms. Jitender Jit Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate standing counsel for U.T. Chandigarh.

¶11

¶12

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶13

This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.427 dated 30.12.2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 511 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sector-17, Chandigarh.

¶14

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, Chandigarh dismissing bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶15

Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused as per the FIR are that he accompanied co-accused Saurav Gupta, who was having an account in ICICI Bank. He presented the cheque for Rs.18 lacs in the account of Parkay Sons in the bank. However, bank authority got suspicious and on inquiry, it was found that said cheque was not issued by Alpha KKC

¶16

CRM No. M-1999 of 2012.

¶17

¶18

Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. and the same was fake one and hence, no payment was made by the bank to co-accused Saurav Gupta.

¶19

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only role allegedly attributed to him is that he accompanied co-accused Saurav Gupta. Further contends that petitioner was not having any account in the said bank and in no way connected with the said transaction. Further contends that he is not beneficiary in any way as no amount was to be received by him and he has been continuing in custody since 30.12.2011. Further contends that the marriage of the petitioner is fixed for 27.01.2012.

¶20

The application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent-State on the plea that the allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature.

¶21

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.

¶22

Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of petitioner Parminder Singh, is allowed.

¶23

Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh.

¶24

January 23, 2012. Sachin M.

¶25

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

Parminder Singh v. Ut of Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parminder Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virender Kumar Sharma Vs State of Haryana

Muddin Vs State of Haryana

Rajwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab & or.

Ranjit Kaur etc. Vs State of Punjab

Gurmukh Singh @ Gukhi Vs State of Punjab

Sachin Rathi & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.