Allowed

Jyotshna Sharma and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC26 May 2014CRM-M/10173/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition for anticipatory bail filed by Jyotshna and Sanjay Sharma accused of cheating under IPC 406/420. The interim bail granted earlier was made absolute as they had joined the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted and the interim bail granted earlier is made absolute.

Jyotshna Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CRM No.M-10173 of 2014

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-10173 of 2014 Date of Decision:- 26.05.2014

¶5

Jyotshna Sharma and another

.....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Joginder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Ms. Amarjit Khurana, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.

¶13

Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

¶15

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶16

Petitioners-Jyotshna Sharma and her husband Sanjay Sharma, have directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.22 dated 27.02.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, by the police of Police Station Moga City.

¶17

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶18

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going

¶19

through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the

¶20

Kumar Naresh 2014.05.29 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

CRM No.M-10173 of 2014

¶22

-2-

¶23

entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶24

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (M. Jeyapaul, J.) on March 22, 2014: -

¶25

“The petition is filed praying for pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

¶26

The allegation is that the petitioners received a total sum of ` 3 lacs on the promise that they would secure gas agency for the complainant.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the fact remains that the petitioners received a sum of ` 2 lacs from the complainant and the same was repaid but an unbelievable story has been made by the complainant with the aid of legal assistance.

¶28

Notice of motion, returnable by 09.05.2014.

¶29

Considering the nature of allegation as against the petitioners, interim anticipatory bail is granted in the following terms:-

¶30

In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer. They shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. They shall also comply with the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

¶31

At the very outset, on instructions from HC Sukhpal Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

¶32

Kumar Naresh 2014.05.29 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶33

CRM No.M-10173 of 2014 -3-

¶34

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of 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 petitioners, by virtue of order dated March 22, 2014, by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶35

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this Court.

¶36

May 26, 2014 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE

¶37

Kumar Naresh 2014.05.29 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Jyotshna Sharma and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyotshna Sharma and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangal Singh and Anr. Vs Dharam Bir and Ors.

Satpal Bansal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Vijay Pal Vs State of Haryana

Surender Vs State of Haryana

Gurmeet Singh @ Gita Vs State of Punjab