Dismissed

Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2013CRM-M/17320/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses an application for anticipatory bail filed by Bhagwan Dass, a petitioner accused of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy. The court held that granting bail would impede the investigation as the petitioner was alleged to have fled and failed to cooperate with the authorities in identifying fake owners.

What did the court decide?

The instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. Order dated 20.08.2013 granting interim protection is impliedly revoked.

Bhagwan Dass Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-17320 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-17320 of 2013 Date of Decision:- 10.09.2013

Bhagwan Dass

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Atul Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Sagar Deswal, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

¶13

Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

¶15

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶16

Petitioner-Bhagwan Dass son of Ram Parsad, has preferred

¶17

the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.57 dated 15.04.2011, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Sections 120-B and 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Farrukh Nagar, District Gurgaon, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶18

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶19

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.12 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CRM No.M-17320 of 2013 2

¶21

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.

¶22

The prosecution claimed that after death of his father Richhpal son of Kirpa Ram, the husband of the complainant was in cultivating possession of the land in dispute since long. Petitioner Bhagwan Dass (property dealer) brought two fake persons, in the month of August 2007, claiming themselves to be actual owner of the land. Petitioner and those two fake persons compelled the complainant party to enter into a sale deed with them. Consequently, on the asking of the petitioner, they executed a sale deed for a total consideration of amount of 12,00,000/-. The fake owners were identified by the petitioner. It was claimed that in fact the fake persons were not the owners and they have hatched a criminal conspiracy with the petitioner, cheated the complainant party and misappropriated the indicated amount. Even the petitioner (property dealer) has received 24,000/- as his commission from the complainant party. In other words, the petitioner is main conspirator/accused and since very serious and direct allegations of cheating and misappropriation of the amount are assigned, so, to me, the petitioner is not at all entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶23

Not only that, the interim protection was granted to enable the petitioner to join and cooperate with the investigating agency, by this Court, vide order dated 20.08.2013. At this stage, learned State counsel,

¶24

on instructions from Investigating Officer, has stated that neither the

¶25

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.12 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶26

CRM No.M-17320 of 2013

¶27

¶28

petitioner is cooperating with the investigating agency nor is disclosing the whereabouts of the fake owners/persons brought and identified by him.

¶29

Therefore, if the petitioner is allowed the benefit of prearrest bail, then, the police would be deprived from, removing the curtain and unearth manner and magnitude of the scam, recovery of forged documents/case property, to ascertain the whereabouts of fake persons/owners and effective investigation. Thus, it would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution, which to my mind is not legally permissible.

¶30

No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the trial of main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶32

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail only.

¶33

September 10, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE

¶34

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.12 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Dass 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

Manjit Singh Vs State of Haryana

Seema Rani Vs State of Haryana

Khajan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kulwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Roop Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Gurminder Singh Vs State of Pb.