Allowed

Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Dec 2012CRM-M/28391/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition for anticipatory bail regarding offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, the petitioner argued the FIR was based on a false story involving an outstanding loan from his father. The single judge accepted these arguments, noting the petitioner had joined investigation without ground for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail accepted and interim order made absolute; petitioner to join investigation as required.

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-28391 of 2012

¶2

..1..

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-28391 of 2012 Date of Decision: 12^th December, 2012

Mohinder Singh

...Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Dr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Sonia Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms.Harsimrat Rai, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶13

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶14

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner-Mohinder Singh who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC.

¶15

According to the prosecution allegation, the petitioner along with his co-accused, Dharam Singh @ Dharma Singh, alleged to have persuaded the complainant to pay ` 3,50,000/for getting a favourable decision from the court.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the factual aspect of the case is that the father of the petitioner had taken a loan of ` 1,60,000/- from the complainant vide pronote (Annexure P-1) which could not be repaid, therefore, the complainant concocted a false story and implicated the petitioner and his co-accused in the present case. He further submits that

¶17

Criminal Misc. No.M-28391 of 2012 ..2..

¶18

even if the contents of the FIR are taken at their face value then also, the version put forth by the complainant appears to be unrealistic since he alleged to have paid ` 3,50,000/- 05-06 years prior to the lodging of the FIR. He further submits that the motive for making the payment was to get a favourable decision from a Court. The said judgment was pronounced on 03.03.2009 while the FIR came into existence on 10.06.2012. He also contends that in compliance of the order dated 28.09.2012, the petitioner did join the investigation and fully co-operated with the Investigating Agency, therefore, his custodial interrogation is not at all worth.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jarnail Singh, Police Station, Economic Offences Wing, Bathinda, submits that the amount paid by the complainant has yet to be recovered, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in this case.

¶20

Heard.

¶21

There appears to be substance in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The father of the petitioner had executed a pronote (Annexure P-1) in favour of the complainant. The alleged occurrence had taken place about 0506 years for getting a favourable decision in favour of the complainant. The said order was passed against the complainant on 03.03.2009 and thereafter, he kept mum for three years. The

¶22

Criminal Misc. No.M-28391 of 2012 ..3..

¶23

petitioner has already joined the investigation. The police file has been perused. No ground for custodial interrogation is made out, therefore, the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail is accepted. The order dated 28.09.2012 whereby the ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner is made absolute.

¶24

The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶25

December 12, 2012 seema

¶26

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohinder Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balram Kumar Sharma Vs Sugan Chand

Jatinder Kumar Verma Vs State of Punjab

Rakesh Kumar and Others Vs Jai Narain and Another

Jatinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Dharam Singh @ Dharma Singh Vs State of Punjab

Vinay Arora Vs Central Bureau of Investigation