Allowed

Rajbir v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Dec 2013CRM-M/19827/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail to Rajbir, a petitioner falsely implicated in cheating offences where co-accused were already on bail. The court noted the petitioner's cooperation with investigation and lack of need for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; interim directions made absolute; petitioner to continue cooperating with investigation under conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

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

¶1

Criminal Misc.No.M-19827 of 2013

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-19827 of 2013 Date of Decision: 03^rd December, 2013

Rajbir

.. Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Nitin Kaushal, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

Mr.V.K.Jindal, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶14

¶15

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶16

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner Rajbir who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.88 dated 29.05.2013, registered at Police Station, Behal, Bhiwani.

¶17

Learned counsel contends that from the perusal of FIR and the other material available on record, it is apparent that the petitioner had no role to play in the sale and purchase of land by Sushila and Vijay Kaur; that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case; and that in compliance of the interim directions issued by this Court on different dates, the petitioner did join the investigation and co-operated with the Investigating Agency.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Inspector Dilbagh Singh, Police Station, Behal, Bhiwani, very fairly

¶19

Sharma Seema 2013.12.04 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

Criminal Misc.No.M-19827 of 2013

¶21

{2}

¶22

concedes that the petitioner did join the investigation and cooperated with the investigating Agency, as such, his custodial interrogation is not required in the present case.

¶23

Learned counsel for the complainant though opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the offences committed by the petitioner are serious in nature and as such,he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. However, he could not substantiate the grounds on which the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

¶25

The co-accused of the petitioner has already been granted the concession of bail by the learned trial court vide order dated 17.08.2013. The involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences is yet to be established. The petitioner has joined the investigation and co-operated with the Investigating Agency. As per the learned counsel for the State, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

¶26

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed and the interim directions issued by this Court on different dates are made absolute.

¶27

The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.

¶28

December 03, 2013 Seema

¶29

(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge

¶30

Sharma Seema 2013.12.04 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Rajbir v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajbir 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakattar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Surjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Baljit Singh @ Gogie Vs State of Punjab

Manjeet Vs State of Haryana

Prikshit Kumar Pahwa Vs State of Punjab

Ramkanwar @ Ram Kumar Vs State of Haryana