The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner accused of cheating under Section 420 IPC. The court held that sending the petitioner to custody served no useful purpose, and the order of interim bail was made absolute.
The petition for anticipatory bail was allowed, and the order granting interim bail was 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.
202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-28351 of 2014 Date of Decision: December 18, 2014
Pawan Kumar
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Chandumajra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.1 dated 10.01.2014 under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station NRI, Jalandhar City, District Jalandhar.
Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the present FIR is counter blast to FIR No.246 dated 09.12.2011 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar by the petitioner against the complainant for getting the
VINEET GULATI 2014.12.19 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-28351 of 2014
-2-
GPA, executed in his favour, cancelled without intimating him.
Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the petitioner has sold land of the complainant in excess of the powers given to him in the General Power of Attorney.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.
The challan has already been presented before the trial Court. The petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is not required for custodial interrogation nor anything is to be recovered from him. The case is based on documentary evidence. The petitioner is only to face trial. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and without discussing the merits of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 21.08.2014 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.
December 18, 2014 Vgulati
(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE
VINEET GULATI 2014.12.19 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Whether the petitioner is required to be sent to custody for interrogation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pawan Kumar
State of Punjab
Inderjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
