Allowed

Rajbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2013CRM-M/7235/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an accused in an IPC 408 case for embezzlement, sought anticipatory bail. The court accepted the petition, made interim bail absolute, and required payment of the remaining embezzled amount and cooperation with investigation as conditions.

What did the court decide?

Instant petition for anticipatory bail accepted; interim bail made absolute subject to compliance of conditions.

Rajbir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

CRM No.M-7235 of 2013(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-7235 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision:07.05.2013

¶5

Rajbir Singh .....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and another .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.N.S.Bhinder, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Gourav Verma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1-State.

¶10

Nemo for respondent No.2.

¶11

¶12

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶13

Petitioner-Rajbir Singh son of Jatti Ram, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, by way of FIR No.225 dated 28.09.2008, for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 408 IPC, by the police of Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents.

¶15

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶16

The prosecution claimed that, the petitioner while working as a Secretary of the Cooperative Societies with the connivance of salesman, has embezzled an amount of Rs.30 lacs. Learned counsel for the

¶17

CRM No.M-7235 of 2013(O&M)

¶18

¶19

petitioner has stated that he(petitioner) has already given in writing to the competent authority to recover the amount of Rs.8 lacs from his GPF Account, whereas he has already paid an amount of Rs.9.50 lacs in cash. The argument is that even the petitioner is prepared to deposit the remaining amount within a period of six months, as granted by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kurukshetra, by means of letter dated 10.01.2013(Annexure P-3).

¶20

Moreover, interim anticipatory bail was granted, to enable the petitioner to join the investigation by this Court, by virtue of order dated March 05, 2013. At this stage, on the instructions from ASI Satyawan, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage.

¶21

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court, vide order dated March 05, 2013, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶22

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation or make the payment of remaining amount, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant connection.

¶23

May 07, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Rajbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

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

Santokh Singh Vs State of Punjab

Public Information Officer Vs State Information Commissioner Punjab

M/S Kaur Sain Spinners Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rachhpal Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Dewan Chand Vs Punjab State etc.