Allowed

Rajdeep Singh Sandhu v. Ut of Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Jan 2016CRM-M/1093/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regular bail in an FIR under Section 420 IPC regarding an alleged cheating case involving a financial dispute over partnership induction. Court granted bail considering length of incarceration and presentation of challan.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh.

Rajdeep Singh Sandhu Vs Ut of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

CRM-M-1093 of 2016

¶2

#1#

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-1093 of 2016 Date of Decision: 28.01.2016

¶5

Dr. Rajdeep Singh Sandhu

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of UT Chandigarh

¶9

…Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. Bipin Ghai, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Paras Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. A.S. Virk, Addl. P.P for the U.T, Chandigarh. Mr. R.S. Narang, Advocate for the complainant.

¶13

JASWANT SINGH, J (Oral)

¶14

Prayer is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.177 dated 09.10.2015 under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh.

¶15

Complainant-Amit Singh and the present petitioner are stated to be friends. Allegations levelled by the complainant is that a sum of Rs.2.40 crores were received by the accused for inducting the complainant as a partner in M/s R.C Hydro Projects engaged in executing various projects in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Neither was the complainant inducted as partner nor the money refunded, hence the present FIR.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.11.2015 and after completion of KUMAR MANOJ the investigation, challan has been presented. Further submits 2016.01.28 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

#2#

¶18

CRM-M-1093 of 2016

¶19

that the case is triable by the Magistrate.

¶20

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that a huge recovery is to be effected and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of regular bail.

¶21

Learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Sohan Lal, does not refute the contention that the challan stands presented and there are 13 cited witnesses.

¶22

Without commenting upon merits of the case and taking into account the period of incarceration and the fact of challan having been presented and that the trial is not going to be concluded in near future, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner beind the bars any longer.

¶23

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh.

¶24

January 28, 2016 (JASWANT SINGH) manoj JUDGE

¶25

KUMAR MANOJ 2016.01.28 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Rajdeep Singh Sandhu v. Ut of Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajdeep Singh Sandhu v. Ut of Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagjit Singh Vs State of Haryana

Pardeep and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Pardeep Vs State of Haryana

Manjit Singh Cheema Vs State of Punjab

Aatish Vs State of Haryana

Anil Kumar Sharma Vs State of Punjab