Dismissed
Subhash v. State of Haryana
Punjab & Haryana HCCRM-M/9517/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA…
What the court decided
AI extract
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA…
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.
-1-
Crl.M.No.M-9517 of 2013(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-9517 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: March 22, 2013
Subhash
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.512, dated 3.12.2012, under Sections 420/120-B/34 IPC, registered at Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Brief allegations are that petitioner alongwith co-accused Satpal and Giri Raj Vyas cheated many residents of Narnaul and adjoining areas by showing them an attractive real estate project in the State of Rajasthan and promising them to allot residential plots. They were made to part with a huge amount of money. Though exact amount has not been mentioned in the FIR and, however, it has been mentioned that the same may run in many crores. Negotiations were conducted at Narnaul with petitioner and co-accused. Complainant and other persons, who were cheated met petitioner personally as he belongs to Narnaul. Co-accused belong to the State of Rajasthan. However, later on they came to know that the land which was shown to them could not be converted into a colony. Hence, neither plots were allotted to complainant and other persons nor
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-9517 of 2013(O&M)
their money was returned.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioneraccused that he has not received any money and that he is having no concern with this transaction and that money was received only by coaccused Satpal. It is further submitted that Courts at Narnaul are having no jurisdiction and that earlier similar complaint was filed in the State of Rajasthan.
However, the said fact has been disclosed by the complainant in the FIR by stating that as negotiations were carried out at Narnual, hence, the complaint in the State of Rajasthan is not maintainable.
Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioneraccused. Rather, his custodial interrogation is necessary.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Subhash for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
22.3.2013 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner amid allegations of cheating in a real estate transaction.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary for the fair trial of the petitioner.
Whether the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. deserves extraordinary relief.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Subhash
State of Haryana
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court