Dismissed

Vipin Kakkar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2013CRM-M/12534/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail in a cheque dishonour and fraud case. The Judge held no extraordinary circumstances existed as the investigation was ongoing and the petitioner was accused of conspiring to defraud the complainant of Rs. 10 lacs.

What did the court decide?

Application for pre-arrest bail dismissed; right to seek regular bail upon surrender preserved.

Vipin Kakkar Vs State of Haryana — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Cr.Misc. M 12534 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Cr.Misc. M 12534 of 2013 Date of decision: 13.5.2013

Vipin Kakkar

.. petitioner

State of Haryana

... respondent

Present Mr. NC Kinra, Advocate. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Hry

¶11

M.M.S. BEDI,J.

¶12

The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Aarti Sharma alleging that she was persuaded to part with a sum of Rs.10 lacs, as earnest money on the basis of agreement of sale, whereas the subject matter of the agreement of sale was already under litigation in case Ramesh Kumari vs. Jaipal Rana.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner submits that dispute is pending between the complainant Aarti Sharma and Jaipal Rana but he has got nothing to do with the agreement to sell. He is neither an attesting witness nor beneficiary. A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner had issued a cheque of Rs. 10 lacs in the name of Prateek Sharma, husband of the complainant, which cheque on presentation was dishonoured. It appears to be debatable at this stage whether the amount, sought to be paid by the petitioner by issuance of a cheque of Rs. 4 lacs, was payment towards some other transaction or petitioner colluded with the main accused to dupe the complainant Aarti Sharma.

¶14

A perusal of the file indicates that the petitioner is a close

¶15

Cr.Misc. M 12534 of 2013

¶16

¶17

associate of the co-accused Jaipal Rana. He along with Ajay had conspired to sell the property, which was not free from all incumbrances. The petition, filed by his co-accused Jaipal Rana, has been dismissed by a separate order today. No extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The investigation regarding the conduct of the petitioner is still in progress and he appears to be a property dealer, with whose active participation the complainant was made to part with a sum of Rs. 10 lacs, to the co-accused of the petitioner. Joining of mere investigation, pursuant to the interim order , will not confer any right upon the petitioner to seek the concession of pre-arrest bail.

¶18

Dismissed.

¶19

Nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the right of the petitioner to seek regular bail. In case the petitioner moves an application for regular bail by surrendering before the investigating officer or the Illaqa Magistrate, his application will be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of five days.

¶20

May 13 ,2013 ( M.M.S. BEDI ) TSM JUDGE

Vipin Kakkar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kakkar 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

Gilli @ Balinder Vs State of Haryana

Purshotam Lal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Harbans Singh Randhawa Vs Simranjit Kaur

Rabbi Dass Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sandeep Vs State of Haryana