Dismissed

Aarti v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Dec 2016CRM-M/30192/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail regarding cheating, the Single Judge found the allegations of fraud involving significant money amounts serious. Due to the gravity of the offence and the need for custodial interrogation, the court held it was not a fit or proper case for the grant of anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed; no bail granted.

Aarti Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

202

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-30192 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 07, 2016

Aarti

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.T.P.S.Tung, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.P.S.Grewal, Deputy 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.75 dated 29.03.2016 under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Batala, District Gurdaspur.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

From the record, I find that the allegations as per the FIR are mainly against the present petitioner Aarti. As per the allegations, amount of about `9.50 lakhs has been paid by the complainant to Aarti as she induced the complainant that he is a government servant and can help in

¶18

Vineet Gulati 2016.12.08 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRM No.M-30192 of 2016

¶20

-2-

¶21

getting the employment of the sons of the complainant. As per the FIR itself, apart from this, Suraj, Gaurav, Rajinder, Baljinder etc. have also alleged that they have also paid money to the present petitioner. In total, more than `30 lakhs is stated to have been paid to the present petitioner by above-said persons.

¶22

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence and in view of the fact the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, I do not find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶23

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is

¶24

dismissed.

¶25

December 07, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶26

Vineet Gulati 2016.12.08 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Aarti v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aarti v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Kuldeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Bhakti Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pandit Bhuri Dutt Education Society and Ors.

M/S Garg Radios Vs M/S Tapaite India & Anr.

Shiv Dutt Vs Prem Chand Sharma

Rajat Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Ramesh Khatri Vs State of Haryana