Allowed

Manoj Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Feb 2012CRM-M/2195/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted pre-arrest bail to Baljeet Singh and regular bail to Manoj Kumar in a cheating case involving examination impersonation. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as no recovery was pending, and favored release pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Baljeet Singh ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions under Cr.P.C. 438(2); Manoj Kumar directed to be released on bail with a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- and one surety.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-2435 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-2435 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 22nd, 2012

Baljeet Singh

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.... Respondent

2. Criminal Misc. No. M-2195 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 22nd, 2012

Manoj Kumar

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶17

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶18

2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶19

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶20

Present Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate, and Mr. J.S.Thind, Advocate, and Mr. Rajesh Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶21

Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G, Punjab, for the State.

¶22

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶23

Baljeet Singh, the petitioner by way of Criminal Misc. No. M-

¶24

Crl. Misc. No.M-2435 of 2012

¶25

¶26

2435 of 2012 seeks pre-arrest bail and Manoj Kumar by way of Criminal Misc. No.M-2195 of 2012 seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 121 dated 30.12.2011 at Police Station Subhanpur, District Kapurthala for an offence punishable under sections 419, 420 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

¶27

The case against the petitioners is that examination was going on in Lord Krishna Polytechnic College, Subhanpur Road, Kapurthala where Manoj Kumar, petitioner appeared as examinee in place of Baljeet Singh in the paper of Applied Physics-II (Code 2351) of third semester.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Baljit Singh has submitted that the petitioner is a budding sportsman and that he was appearing for the trials at Amritsar and in his place, Manoj Kumar is said to have appeared in the examination. He has submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge in this regard. He has further submitted that no recovery is to be effected in this case and the case is based on documentary evidence alone.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Manoj Kumar has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 30.12.2011. He has further submitted that the case is triable by the Magistrate of Ist class and that the petitioner is a young man and he is also to appear in his examinations and if he is not allowed bail, he will be deprived of taking his own examinations.

¶30

Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that the offence is very serious. According to him, it cannot be believed that Baljeet Singh did not know that Manoj Kumar was appearing in his place at the examination. He has, however, admitted that no recovery is to be

¶31

Crl. Misc. No.M-2435 of 2012

¶32

¶33

effected in this case and that the custody of the petitioner, Baljeet Singh is not required for investigation of this case.

¶34

As submitted by learned State counsel, it is hard to believe that Manoj Kumar appeared in place of Baljeet Singh at the examination without his knowledge. Rather, it would be a case that he appeared in the examination for him at his instance. Keeping in view the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, Baljeet Singh is not required for investigation and that the other petitioner is in custody since 30.12.2011 and the trial would proceed with the Magistrate of the first class which would take long time to be over, the petitioners appear entitled to bail. Consequently, the petitions are allowed. Baljeet Singh, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest to the satisfaction of arresting officer subject to the conditions mentioned in section 438(2) (i) to (iii) Cr.P.C.

¶35

Manoj Kumar, petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala.

¶36

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶37

February 22^nd , 2012 som

Manoj Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. State of Punjab

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

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

A.J. Ansari Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Hardep Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rajbir & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Another

Satinder Singh @ Babba & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

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