Dismissed

Ramandeep Kaur v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Mar 2013CRM-M/27575/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected a petition for pre-arrest bail in a cheating case. The court found no extraordinary circumstances justifying bail, noting the petitioner's co-accused had been released on regular bail and police had recorded telephonic admissions.

What did the court decide?

Petition for pre-arrest bail dismissed; matter left open for regular bail application to be decided expeditiously.

Ramandeep Kaur Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Cr.Misc. M 27575 of 2012

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

Cr.Misc. M 27575 of 2012 Date of decision:19.3.2013

Ramandeep Kaur

.. petitioner

State of Haryana

... respondent

Present Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Hry Mr. BR Gupta, Advocate.

¶11

M.M.S. BEDI,J.

¶12

The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case, registered at the instance of Karamjit Singh alleging that coaccused of the petitioner Narinder Singh had contacted the complainant that he could get the son of the complainant appointed as a Sub Inspector in the Haryana Police. He asked for a sum of Rs.24 lacs for getting the job done. He took the complainant and his son to the petitioner. The petitioner allegedly told them to pay a sum of Rs.24 lacs. The amount was given on different dates.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is a lady and that her house had been constructed by Narinder Singh. There was some money dispute with Narinder Singh and it is Narinder Singh, who has got the petitioner involved in the case.

¶14

Counsel for the complainant and the learned State counsel have opposed the petition for pre-arrest bail contending that there is a

¶15

Cr.Misc. M 27575 of 2012

¶16

¶17

telephonic conversation recorded by the complainant, which is a part of the police record indicating that it is the petitioner, who had admitted the receipt of money and promised to get a job to the son of the complainant.

¶18

During the course of investigation, two sale deeds have been taken in possession to establish that the complainant had sources to pay the money.

¶19

I have considered the contention of counsel for the petitioner that on account of some money dispute with Narinder Singh, the petitioner has been falsely implicated at the instance of Narinder Singh. It is not out of place to observe here that Narinder Singh was arrested and released on regular bail. No extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Dismissed.

¶21

Nothing said in this order will prejudice the right of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail. It will be appreciated in case the application of the petitioner for regular bail is decided expeditiously, being a lady.

¶22

March 19 ,2013 TSM

¶23

( M.M.S. BEDI ) JUDGE

Ramandeep Kaur v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramandeep Kaur 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

Shankar Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Laxmi and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kiranjit Kaur Vs Sukhdev Singh

Mahabir and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Mohd. Mazid Vs State of Punjab

Goldy Rani and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others