Allowed

Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jan 2012CRM-M/32586/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted pre-arrest bail to petitioners. They faced a cheating case where the State counsel noted that no recovery was needed from the accused as the money went to a third party. The court made an earlier interim bail order absolute without reviewing the merits.

What did the court decide?

The application for pre-arrest bail was allowed and the interim bail grant dated 25.10.2011 was made absolute.

Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc. M-32586 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. M-32586 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:19^th January, 2012

¶5

Radhey Shyam and another

¶6

.......Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana

¶9

........Respondent

¶10

BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present: Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Vikas Malik, AAG, Haryana for the respondent - State.

¶13

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

¶14

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No

¶15

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No

¶16

Vijender Singh Malik, J.(Oral)

¶17

The petitioners have applied for pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 431, dated 06.06.2011 at Police Station, Sadar Hisar, District Hisar for an offence punishable under sections 420/426/403/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶18

The allegations against the petitioners are that they had cheated the complainant in a sum of ` 45,000/- on the allegation that admission was promised to be arranged for two persons for J.B.T and B.P.Ed course. As the same did not materialize, the complaint was

¶19

Criminal Misc. M-32586 of 2011

¶20

¶21

lodged with the police.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on thorough inquiry the police came to the conclusion that the complaint was false. According to him, a complaint was later on made by them to the Magistrate which was sent to the police under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on which this case has been registered. He has further submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and as the money is alleged to have been paid to Rajender and not to the petitioners, no recovery is to be effected from the petitioners.

¶23

Learned State counsel on instructions of ASI Ram Avtar submits that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and no recovery is there to be effected from them.

¶24

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the order dated 25.10.2011 granting interim bail to the petitioners is made absolute.

¶25

[VIJENDER SINGH MALIK] JUDGE

¶26

19^th January, 2012 Shivani Kaushik

Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhey Shyam & Anr. 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

Khoday Distilleries Ltd. NO.54 through Its Vice President Sr. K. Srikishan Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Yanshika Impex Vs State of Punjab and Another

Parmala Devi Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

M/S Yamuna Gases and Chemicals Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula

Najar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhvir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.