Allowed

Virender Kumar Kaushik v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2013CRM-M/11661/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court converted interim anticipatory bail granted by the trial court into absolute bail for the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC, accepting arguments that he had no role in the alleged cheque dishonour and was a poor farmer's son.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail accepted; order granting interim bail made absolute subject to trial court conditions.

Virender Kumar Kaushik Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Money Laundering | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-11661 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 11661 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: May 16, 2013.

¶5

Virender Kumar Kaushik

¶6

...... PETITIONER(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and another

¶9

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mrs. Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

¶14

¶15

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶16

The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in complaint/Protest Petition no.463 dated 16.01.2009/17.4.2012, under Sections 420/406/467/468/120B IPC, registered at police station Camp, Palwal.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal dismissing anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner.

¶18

CRM No.M-11661 of 2013

¶19

¶20

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 11.04.2013 passed the following order:-

¶21

“Contends that petitioner has not committed any act of cheating with respondent no.2 and rather father of petitioner, who is a poor farmer, has been cheated. Further submitted that respondent no.2 is a builder. Further contends that agreement to sell the land in dispute was entered between father of petitioner and respondent no.2 and that on the asking of respondent no.2, a draft of `42,59,376/- was given in the name of Pawan Kumar, who is brother of Ram Shankar, an employee of respondent no.2 and that petitioner has no concern with said Pawan Kumar and the said payment of draft was taken by said Pawan Kumar. It is further submitted that father of petitioner also lodged an FIR against respondent no.2 alongwith other accused including Pawan Kumar and learned Magistrate has already summoned Pawan Kumar and other accused in that case. It is further submitted that no role has been attributed to present petitioner and that father of petitioner has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶22

Notice of motion for 16.5.2013.

¶23

In the meantime, petitioner is directed to appear before learned Summoning Magistrate within two weeks from today and if he so appears and applies for bail, learned Summoning Magistrate is directed to admit him to interim bail subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed.”

¶24

It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that he has already appeared before learned trial court on 15.04.2013 pursuant to said order and admitted to interim bail. Certified copy of the order dated

¶25

CRM No.M-11661 of 2013

¶26

¶27

15.04.2013 has also been placed on record. It is further stated by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner undertakes to appear before learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and face trial.

¶28

The factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent-State.

¶29

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶30

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Virender Kumar Kaushik is accepted and order dated 11.04.2013 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by learned trial Court.

¶31

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

May 16, 2013. ‘om’

¶33

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

Virender Kumar Kaushik v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virender Kumar Kaushik v. State of Haryana and Anr.

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

Gurbinder Singh @ Shinda Vs State of Punjab

Kasamdin Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Charanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rajnish Vs State of Haryana

Rajesh Kumar and Anr. Vs Subhash Jain and Anr.

Sukhwinder Singh @ Sonu Vs State of Punjab