Allowed

Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Oct 2016CRM-M/19846/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in a cheating case. The single Judge found it a fit case as the petitioner was not required for investigation and the FIR was registered after the alleged compromise. The petition was accepted and interim bail granted was made absolute.

What did the court decide?

Petition accepted; order dated 15.06.2016 granting interim bail made absolute.

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Money Laundering | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

201

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-19846 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 21, 2016

Rajinder Kumar

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.T.S.Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms.Shivali, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶12

¶13

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶14

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.43 dated 03.03.2016 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar.

¶15

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that allegations are completely unfounded. He argued that as per the statement of account, no amount is due payable to the Bank. Only two transactions are reflected and the FIR has been registered on the account of previous enmity.

¶17

On the other hand, learned State counsel admitted that receipt

¶18

Vineet Gulati 2016.10.22 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRM No.M-19846 of 2016 -2-

¶20

has been taken into possession during the investigation showing the compromise in the year 2015 and as per statement of account, no amount, payable to the bank, is found.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

¶22

From the perusal of the record, I find that the transactions from the year 2008 to 2015 are only to the extent of about `31,000/- and as per the compromise, which shown to this Court in the police file, that money has been adjusted.

¶23

The petitioner has joined the investigation. He is not required for investigation or interrogation purposes. The FIR in this case has been registered after one year of the alleged compromise. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.

¶24

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits 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 accepted and the order dated 15.06.2016 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

¶25

October 21, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE

¶26

Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable

¶27

Yes No

¶28

Vineet Gulati 2016.10.22 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Haryana

Prabhjot Kaur @ Veerpal Kaur Vs Inderjit Singh and Ors.

Seema Devi Vs Manju Handa

Chand Singh Vs State of Haryana

Rajinder Singh Vs Giani Inderjit Singh & Anr.

Navjot Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.