Allowed

Balbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Sept 2013CRM-M/20539/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court accepted the application. The dispute underlying the FIR was settled between parties. The interim bail order passed earlier during notice of motion was made absolute subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was accepted and the interim bail order dated 01.07.2013 was made absolute subject to compliance of conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

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

¶1

CRM No.M-20539 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 20539 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: September 24, 2013.

¶5

Balbir Singh and others

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Haryana

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. P.S.Sullar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Mr. APS Mann, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶13

¶14

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.72 dated 11.05.2013, under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/506 IPC, registered at police station Barara, District Ambala

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala dismissing anticipatory bail application

¶17

Singh Omkar 2013.09.25 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶18

CRM No.M-20539 of 2013

¶19

¶20

filed on behalf of the petitioners.

¶21

This Court while issuing notice of motion on 01.07.2013 passed the following order:-

¶22

“Contends that none of the petitioners is beneficiary of this transaction and that in fact agreement was executed between co-accused Gian Chand and the complainant and the amount was also received by co-accused Gian Chand and no amount was received by any of the present petitioners. Further contends that petitioners no.1 and 2 have signed the agreement only as witnesses and petitioner no.3 has not even signed the agreement. Further contends that dispute is between Gian Chand and the complainant which is civil in nature.

¶23

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 1.8.2013.

¶24

However, in the meantime, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶25

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 01.07.2013. It is also contended that moreover the dispute has also since been settled between the parties.

¶26

It has also been stated by learned counsel for the complainant that dispute has since been settled and that he is having no objection if the interim order is made absolute.

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent-State, on instruction from SI

¶28

Singh Omkar 2013.09.25 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶29

CRM No.M-20539 of 2013

¶30

¶31

Harpal Singh, has also not opposed the bail application.

¶32

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶33

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Balbir Singh, Dheer Singh and Ram Singh @Tikkal Chauhan is accepted and order dated 01.07.2013 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶34

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶35

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 24, 2013. JUDGE ‘om’

¶36

Singh Omkar 2013.09.25 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Balbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh & Ors. 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

Reeta & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Satpal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Anil Vs State of Haryana

Jasjit Singh @ Lucky Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Another

Maan Singh Vs State of Haryana & Anr.