Allowed

Harjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC30 May 2013CRM-M/11840/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition for pre-arrest bail in a cheating case. Entitled the petitioners to bail since they joined the investigation and the Anti Human Trafficking Cell found no evidence of the alleged transaction in India.

What did the court decide?

The petition for pre-arrest bail was allowed and the interim anticipatory bail order dated 11.4.2013 was made absolute.

Harjit Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-11840 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-11840 of 2013 Date of decision:-30.05.2013

¶5

Harjit Singh and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present:Mr. A.S. Narang, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG Punjab.

¶13

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK J.(Oral)

¶14

Harjit Singh and Jaswinder Singh, the petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 7 dated 05.2.2013, under Section 420 IPC, at Police Station Sekhwan.

¶15

While issuing notice of motion on 11.4.2013, the following submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner have been noticed :-

¶16

“Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the allegations against the petitioners are that they received a sum of Rs.3 lacs from the complainant for sending his son to USA in the year 2006. According to him, similar complaint was made by the complainant earlier in the year 2011 and that complaint was sent to Anti Human Trafficking Cell and it was found by the

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-11840 of 2013

¶18

-2-

¶19

Cell that there was no such transaction having been taken place in India and as the brother of the petitioner and complainant used to live abroad, some transaction might have been there between them for which this false complaint has been lodged.”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has added now that the petitioners have joined the investigation and have cooperated with the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State admits that the petitioners have joined the investigation. According to him, the amount of Rs.3 lacs, given to the petitioners, has not been recovered so far.

¶22

The report of the Anti Human Trafficking Cell, to whom the previous complaint was made made, is there on the record as Annexure P-3, which shows that Jagtar singh complainant and Sukhwinder Singh brother of petitioners had been there in USA and they had been living together. This report concludes that there have some transactions in between two of them in USA. The Anti Human Trafficking Cell concludes its report by observing that there is no evidence of any transaction among them in India. For the fact that the petitioners have joined the investigation, I find the petitioners to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed and order dated 11.4.2013 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners is made absolute.

¶23

May 30, 2013 ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

Harjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjit Singh & Anr. 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

Chitmail Singh Vs State of Punjab

Simranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Krishna and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Dharampal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab