Partly allowed

Nathi Ram v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Mar 2017CRM-M/28371/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail but granted regular bail to two other petitioners involved in a cheque fraud case, citing their presence in captured footage to establish the need for custodial interrogation while allowing their release on bonds.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; applications for regular bail by Mohd. Sahid Gulshan and Virender allowed subject to conditions including surrender of bonds and attendance at all hearings

Nathi Ram Vs State of Haryana — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CRM-M-28371 of 2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

1. CRM-M-28371 of 2016 Date of Decision : 22.03.2017 Nathi Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent 2. CRM-M-39458 of 2016 Mohd. Sahid Gulshan ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent 3. CRM-M-6765 of 2017 Virender ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶5

Present: Ms. Upasana Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-28371 of 2016

¶6

Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-39458 of 2016.

¶7

Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-6765 of 2017

¶8

Ms. Neelam Kashyap, DAG, Haryana.

¶9

Surinder Gupta, J.

¶10

Above-captioned three petitions have been taken up together for disposal by this common order as all these three petitions arise from the same FIR bearing No. 525 dated 19.05.2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 482 and 419 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), at Police Station Chandnibagh, District Panipat.

¶11

Jitender Kumar 2017.03.23 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

¶12

CRM-M-28371 of 2016 -2-

¶13

As per case of prosecution, a fabricated cheque of the account of Ms. Tanvi Batra, resident of House No. 549, Sector 11, HUDA, Panipat was prepared and presented to the bank by petitioner-Nathi Ram in CRM-M28371 of 2016 and petitioner-Mohd. Sahid Gulshan in CRM-M-39458 of 2016 and a sum of `15,65,895/- was withdrawn. The amount on fake cheque bearing no. 552066 was got transferred by the accused through RTGS in the account at Saharanpur, which was in the name of M/s Manav Vikas Parishad of which petitioner-Mohd. Sahid Gulshan is stated to be the President.

¶14

Allegation against petitioner-Virender in CRM-M-6765 of 2017 is that he was also present at the time of presentation of fake cheque to the bank for transfer of amount mentioned therein through RTGS in the account of M/s Manav Vikas Parishad. His presence was recorded in CCTV camera installed in the bank during transaction on the date of occurrence. So far as applicant in petition (CRM-M-28371 of 2016), namely, Nathi Ram, is concerned, he was also seen with petitioner-Mohd. Sahid Gulshan, when the cheque was presented to the bank and his presence was also recorded in CCTV camera of the bank.

¶15

Out of total amount of 15,65,895/- withdrawn by petitioners, a sum of 1 lac was received by petitioner-Nathi Ram in CRM-M-28371 of 2016, who deposited the same in FDR in Allahabad Bank, Saharanpur and then got it transferred through RTGS to his account.

¶16

In view of above facts, I find no merit in petition of Nathi Ram (CRM-M-28371 of 2016), who has sought anticipatory bail. It is a case where a hefty amount was withdrawn from the account of an innocent ordinary citizen by preparing a fake cheque of her account. Presence of Nathi Ram was also seen in CCTV footage. His custodial interrogation will help the Jitender Kumar 2017.03.23 16:43 I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document police to investigate and find out other similar instances being carried out by CHANDIGARH

¶17

CRM-M-28371 of 2016 -3-

¶18

such type of gangs, as such, the application (CRM-M-28371 of 2016) is declined.

¶19

Petitioner-Mohd. Sahid Gulshan in CRM-M-39458 of 2016 and petitioner-Virender in CRM-M-6765 of 2017 have sought regular bail and both are now in judicial custody after their arrest on 29.05.2016 and 28.10.2016 respectively. Challan has been presented against them but supplementary challan against Nathi Ram will be filed after his arrest, which will initiate de novo trial and may take considerable time to conclude.

¶20

Keeping in view above facts but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, both the petitions i.e. CRM-M-39458 of 2016 and CRM-M-6765 of 2017 filed by petitioners, Mohd. Sahid Gulshan and Virender, respectively are allowed and they are ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, subject to following terms:-

¶21

(a) Petitioners shall comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

¶22

(b) In the event of their absence on any date of hearing, the benefit of bail allowed to petitioners shall stand withdrawn. The trial Court shall be competent to cancel their bail bonds and surety bonds and proceed to procure their presence in accordance with law. In that eventuality petitioners shall have to apply for bail afresh.

¶23

¶24

March 22, 2017 ( SURINDER GUPTA) jk JUDGE

¶25

Whether speaking/Reasoned Whether Reportable

¶26

Yes/No Yes/No

¶27

Jitender Kumar 2017.03.23 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH

Nathi Ram v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nathi Ram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Vs State of Haryana

Sunil Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Gurmail Singh @ Gaily Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Taro Bai Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bagicha Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.