Dismissed

Deepak @ Deepu v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jan 2013CRM-M/2394/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana refused pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in sections 406 and 420 IPC. The court held that the seriousness of the offence and the need for custodial interrogation precluded bail, noting that paying attorney fees does not establish a prima facie case for statutory exemption.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail petition dismissed; petitioner held to be not entitled to bail.

Deepak @ Deepu Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 2394 of 2013

¶2

----1--

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 2394 of 2013 Date of decision. 24.01.2013

Deepak alias Deepu

....... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Haryana

........ Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present:Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶13

Crl. Misc. No.4563 of 2013

¶14

Miscellaneous application is allowed. Document

¶15

Annexure P-2 is taken on record and the petitioner is granted exemption from filing certified copy thereof. Crl. Misc. No.M-2394 of 2013

¶16

Deepak @ Deepu, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 133 dated 27.07.2012 at Police

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M- 2394 of 2013 ----2--

¶18

Station Loharu , District Bhiwani, for an offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 IPC.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case where the complainant claims that from his account, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been withdrawn on 23.10.2010 by some person. According to him, two other persons have been arrested in this case and nothing was found against them. He has further submitted that amount of Rs.1,00,000/- could be withdrawn only on withdrawal form. He has further submitted that the FIR is moreover delayed by two years and five months and nothing has to be recovered in this case from the petitioner.

¶20

Delay would ipso facto not show that the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail. Long time can be taken by a person, holder of an account, to come to know that from his account some amount has been withdrawn by some other person by forging his signatures. Nothing is shown before me to believe that the delay in lodging the FIR was deliberate. The role of other two persons in the occurrence, if not found by the police to be proved would also not show that the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation for investigation of this case.

¶21

Crl. Misc. No. M- 2394 of 2013 ----3--

¶22

Keeping in view the seriousness of the matter and requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner for investigation of the same, I find the petitioner to be not entitled to pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

¶23

January 24, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE

Deepak @ Deepu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak @ Deepu 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

Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Parveen Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Sakshi & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Dharminder Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Dheeraj Vs State of Haryana

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab