Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in an IPC case involving cheating and forgery, arguing he was merely an attesting witness disputing his signature and not a beneficiary. The court found him entitled to bail as custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Petition allowed; order granting interim anticipatory bail made absolute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-40631 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: 11.02.2013
Ram Saroop
... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Chaudhry, DAG Punjab. .
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL)
Ram Saroop, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 29 dated 27.2.2012 at Police Station Cantt. Ferozepur, District Ferozepur now District Fazilka, , for an offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is accused of being only an attesting witness of an agreement which was filed in a criminal case by way of compromise. According to him, the petitioner disputes the existence of his thumb impression on the document. He further submits that even if it is taken that his thumb impression is there on the document, he is not a beneficiary in the transaction. He further submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required for investigation of the case.
Crl. Misc. No.M-40631 of 2012 =2=
Learned State counsel,on instructions from ASI Tarsem Sharma, admits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and that his custodial interrogation is not required. He also does not dispute the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is only an attesting witness of the document which was filed by way of compromise in a criminal case and that he is not a beneficiary of the same as also that he has joined the investigation, I find the petitioner to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the petition is allowed and order dated 21.12.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.
February 11,2013 ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail given he is only an attesting witness, disputes his thumb impression on the document, and has joined the investigation without requiring custodial
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Saroop
State of Punjab
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
