Allowed

Govind v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2013CRM-M/36181/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two petitions for pre-arrest bail were disposed of by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The court observed that while the underlying facts involved property transactions and allegations of forgery, the petitioners' roles were debatable or they had joined investigation. Both petitions were allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; petitioners to be released on bail upon arrest subject to joining investigation and not tampering with evidence.

Govind Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRM-M-36181 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of decision: May 21, 2013.

¶4

(1)

¶5

CRM-M-36181 of 2012 (O&M).

Govind

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana.

¶10

..... Respondent

¶11

¶12

(2) CRM-M-1000 of 2013 (O&M).

Yasbir @ Kalu

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana.

¶17

..... Respondent

¶18

*** * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT: Ms.Monisha Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-36181-2012.**

¶19

Mr.Yash Dev Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-1000-2013.

¶20

Mr.Amit Goyal, AAG., Haryana.

¶21

M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL).

¶22

This order will dispose of the above noted two petitions for the grant of pre-arrest bail i.e., CRM-M-36181-2012 filed by Govind and another CRM-M-1000-2013 filed by Yasbir @ Kalu.

¶23

The FIR was registered at the instance of Kanchan Bali sister of Bhopal Chand alleging that after obtaining divorce from his wife Bhopal Chand had been staying with her. He died on 9.8.2009. Non-applicant Gurcharan Singh attorney of Sonam wife of

¶24

¶25

CRM-M-36181 of 2012 (O&M)

¶26

Bhopal Chand, Komal and Neelam daughters of Bhopal Chand sold the property to the petitioner Govind on the basis of a forged registered power of attorney in favour of Gurcharan Singh.

¶27

Counsel for petitioner Yasbir submits that petitioner is neither a beneficiary nor he is signatory to any document.

¶28

On the other hand, State counsel informs that the petitioner was an intermediator when Bhopal Chand had purchased the property. The petitioner has already joined investigation as per ASI Dayanand.

¶29

Taking into consideration the role attributed to petitioner Yasbir, he can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail as it will be debatable whether he conspired with the main accused in preparation of forged power of attorney and subsequent sale of the property to Govind.

¶30

So far as Govind is concerned, he is not resident of Faridabad. He claims himself to be bona fide purchaser. A civil suit had been filed by the petitioner for injunction to restrain the others from interfering in the possession. Whether vendor (general power of attorney) could transfer the title has to be decided by the Civil Court.

¶31

Taking into consideration the above said circumstances, petitioner Govind also can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail, he having already joined investigation.

¶32

Both the petitions are allowed. It is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners, they will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the conditions that the petitioners will join investigation as and when required and will not tamper with the evidence or hamper investigation, in any manner.

¶33

May 21, 2013. rka

¶34

(M.M.S. BEDI) JUDGE

¶35

Govind v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind 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

Baldev Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab etc.

Avtar Singh Vs Kaka Singh and Ors.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Yasbir @ Kalu Vs State of Haryana

Tarlok Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab