The Court dismissed bail petitions filed by Aarti Verma and Dr. Rakesh Verma regarding charges of cheating and forgery in a property deal. Holding that the offences involved large amounts and similar pending cases, the Court found no ground for bail.
Both bail petitions dismissed. Petitioners ordered to remain in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: November 15, 2012
Aarti Verma
…Petitioner
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh
…Respondent
Dr. Rakesh Verma
…Petitioner
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh
…Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Ms. Naveen Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl. P.P. for U.T. Chandigarh.
Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, for the complainant.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
disposed of by this common order since both the criminal miscellaneous petitions have arisen out of FIR No. 147, dated 23.5.2012, under Sections 120-B and 420, IPC, registered at Police Station, Economic Offences Wing, Sector 17, Chandigarh, and the common prayer in both the petitions is for grant of regular bail to the petitioners.
CRM-M Nos. 24223 and 28524 of 2012 (O&M)
2
2.00 crores as earnest money, another 2.00 crores on 25.12.2010 and `2.50 crores on 15.3.2011. The date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 20.5.2011.CRM-M Nos. 24223 and 28524 of 2012 (O&M)
3
1.93 crores, was a forged and fabricated one. The petitioners kept on extending the date for execution of the sale deed. In the meantime, the bank pasted a notice on the above said house under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and thereafter the complainant came to know that, in fact, the loan amount due against the said house was to the tune of 14.63 crores and the entire property was mortgaged with the bank. The complainant requested the petitioners to clear the loan of the bank and execute the sale deed, but they (petitioners) threatened the complainant with dire consequences.CRM-M Nos. 24223 and 28524 of 2012 (O&M)
4
Miglani, father of Aarti Verma (petitioner), in their conspiracy. They also argued that it is not only the case in which the petitioners are required. In fact, there is one more case of similar nature pending against the petitioners in which they are also in jail.
CRM-M Nos. 24223 and 28524 of 2012 (O&M)
5
November 15, 2012 Pkapoor
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to petitioners charged with cheating and forging documents in a property transaction.
Whether the magnitude of offences and involvement in a similar pending case preclude the grant of bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aarti Verma
Dr. Rakesh Verma
State of U.T. Chandigarh
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court