Allowed

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Oct 2012CRM-M/21325/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. Relying on the fact that the primary accused, Sushina, had already been granted bail and that the petitioner's alleged role was accessory to hers, the court held the petitioner entitled to bail and made the interim order absolute.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 24.7.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-21325 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-21325 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : October 3^rd , 2012

¶5

Ranjeet Singh .... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana .... Respondent

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶9

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?

¶10

Present Mr. Parveen Chouhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana, for the State.

¶12

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶13

Ranjeet Singh, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 61 dated 18.2.2012 at Police Station City Gohana, District Sonepat for an offence punishable under sections 420, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Sushina alias Sheena has been alleged to have agreed to sell her land in favour of the complainant and to have received a sum of ` 6,50,000/- as earnest money. He has further submitted that she is said to have not come forward to get the sale deed registered in pursuance of the

¶15

Crl. Misc. No.M-21325 of 2012

¶16

¶17

agreement of sale. According to him, no agreement is there in writing between Sushina and the complainant. He has further submitted that the role attributed to the petitioner is only of accompanying said Sushina and of receiving money on being given to him by Sushina. According to him, Sushina has already been granted bail by this court. He has further submitted that it is difficult to believe that a stranger would give ` 6.50 lakhs to Sushina without getting any agreement of sale made in writing from her in his favour. According to him, Sushina, who had lost her husband, had a dispute with her other relatives and those relatives have been after the blood of Sushina and all others, who help her.

¶18

Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that the petitioner had been with Sushina when she came to solicit a customer for her land. According to him, the petitioner has taken active part in the occurrence and he is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶19

There is no dispute about the fact that the land allegedly agreed to be sold is owned by Sushina. It is also not a fact in dispute that the complainant does not have an agreement of sale in his favour from said Sushina. What he claims in his favour is an oral agreement of sale entered into between him and Sushina. The petitioner is said to have accompanied Sushina and to have received the money advanced as earnest money to Sushina.

¶20

When Sushina alias Sheena has already been granted bail, the role of the petitioner being lesser than her role in the occurrence, he is also entitled to anticipatory bail. The petition is, consequently, allowed and the order dated 24.7.2012 passed by this court granting interim

¶21

Crl. Misc. No.M-21325 of 2012

¶22

¶23

anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

¶24

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶25

October 3^rd , 2012 som

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Singh 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

Nishan Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ranjit Singh &Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kishan Lal @ Krishan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jasbir Singh Vs Darshan Singh

Shobha Vs State of Haryana

Kultar Singh Vs State of Punjab