Dismissed

Gursimranjit Singh Bhullar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Apr 2013CRM-M/12466/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail in an FIR involving alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust over unpaid building materials. The High Court held that the facts prima facie indicate dishonest intention, specifically due to the accused's consumption of goods, silence on defects, and refusal to join inquiry. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed in limine.

Gursimranjit Singh Bhullar Vs State of Punjab — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-12466 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-12466 of 2013

¶5

Date of Decision : April 23, 2013

¶6

Gursimranjit Singh Bhullar

¶7

.... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Punjab .... Respondent

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶11

¶12

Present : Mr. Karan Vir Nanda, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.

¶14

Mr. Rajender Singla, Advocate for the complainant.

¶15

¶16

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶17

Accused Gursimranjit Singh Bhullar has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.129 dated 06.04.2013, under Sections 406, 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

¶18

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, complainant Amrish

¶19

Singla made written complaint to the police alleging that pursuant to

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M-12466 of 2013

¶21

¶22

purchase order dated 28.06.2010 placed by the petitioner, the complainant supplied building material to the petitioner, but he did not make payment of Rs.28,13,741/- as price of the material. Initially on demand, the petitioner put off the matter saying that he had applied for loan, but after some days, the petitioner threatened the complainant of dire consequences if he visited the office of the petitioner. The petitioner was allegedly using the power of his father, who retired as Additional Director General of Police, Punjab. On the aforesaid complaint, FIR was not registered straightway. On the other hand, preliminary inquiry was held by Superintendent of Police. The complainant reiterated his version. However, the petitioner did not even join the inquiry despite being called several times. Thereupon, after receiving report from Superintendent of Police, instant FIR was registered.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that this is only a civil dispute and there was no dishonest intention when the supply of the material started, and therefore, no offence is made out. It was submitted that the petitioner stopped making payment to the complainant when the complainant started supplying defective material.

¶24

The aforesaid contentions cannot be accepted at this stage.

¶25

Intention being in the mind of the petitioner-accused, can be inferred only from circumstances, because direct evidence thereof is unlikely to be available. In the instant case, the circumstances are writ large to infer the dishonest intention of the petitioner. If material supplied by the

¶26

Crl. Misc. No. M-12466 of 2013

¶27

¶28

complainant was defective, the petitioner should not have consumed it and should have written to the complainant about the defective material. However, the petitioner has consumed the material and has not written till date to the complainant that the material was defective. The complainant even sent legal notice Annexure P-2 to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not even respond to the same. The petitioner also did not join the preliminary inquiry held by the Superintendent of Police before registration of FIR, although the petitioner was called time and again. Before the Sessions Court, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wanted to settle the matter with the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner was asked if the petitioner was still ready to settle the matter with the complainant. The case was passed over for some time. Counsel for the petitioner, having sought instructions, stated that the petitioner is not ready to make settlement because demand of the complainant is very high.

¶29

All the aforesaid circumstances are prima facie sufficient to draw inference of initial dishonest intention of the petitioner, at this stage. In view of serious allegations against him, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

¶30

Dismissed in limine, without meaning to express opinion on

¶31

merits of the case.

¶32

April 23, 2013 monika

¶33

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

Gursimranjit Singh Bhullar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gursimranjit Singh Bhullar 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

Piara Singh & Anr. Vs Gurdwara Kalgidhar & Ors.

The Cantonment Board Jalandhar Cantt Vs Ram Rakhi etc.

Sawinder Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukhbir Singh Vs Hem Singh

Jaspal Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Others