Dismissed

Manoj Kumar Kansal v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2015CRM-M/19799/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The court declined the prayer due to the serious nature of the allegations involving forgery and forgery of official documents, holding that custodial interrogation by the State was necessary to unearth the crime.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for anticipatory bail was declined; the petition was dismissed as the petitioner must face custodial interrogation.

Manoj Kumar Kansal Vs State of Haryana — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

�� 

¶2

��

¶3

Date of decision: 10^th September, 2015

Manoj Kumar Kansal

� Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

� Respondent

�� !��!��

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.S. Mavi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Munish Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana.

¶15

Mr. Harmandeep S. Sullar, Advocate for the complainant.

¶16

��!��"��#�� $

¶17

Allegations against the petitioner Manoj Kumar Kansal in this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.150 dated 25.09.2013 registered at Police Station Saha, District Ambala under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC are that during the period September 2013 the petitioner, who is running a firm under the name and style of ‘M/s Shree Sai International’ dealing in electrical goods, had prepared a forged receipt of form No.38 regarding payment of Value Added Tax (VAT) and also used a forged and

¶18

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.09.11 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶19

¶20

��

¶21

fabricated rubber stamp/seal of the competent authority to show it as genuine and thus, in all usurped taxation amount of �16,230.

¶22

Contentions of Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. H.S. Mavi, Advocate representing the petitioner that the petitioner has subsequently paid the VAT amount and it is only a nominal amount of �8,096; have been vehemently opposed on behalf of the State by Mr. Munish Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana who has sought custodial interrogation of the petitioner on the grounds that entire record of the transaction has to be recovered to unearth the nexus and gamut of the crime.

¶23

Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary in this matter to reach the depth of the entire offence, which necessitates declining of the prayer made in this petition and in view thereof the instant petition stands dismissed.

¶24

#��!��$� ��

¶25

!%&'%()%*��"�� ��

¶26

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.09.11 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

Manoj Kumar Kansal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Kansal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Rupinder Kaur and Anr. Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Neha Rani & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Nirmala Devi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ankur Mittal Vs State of Punjab

Anoop Vs State of Haryana

Vimal @ Bimal Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.