Dismissed

Sachin Mishra v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Apr 2017CRM-M/3994/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that the petitioner required custodial interrogation due to the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and no ground was made for bail.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed as no ground is made for releasing the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Sachin Mishra Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

201

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-3994 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 18, 2017

Sachin Mishra

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Rajat Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

¶12

¶13

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶14

Petitioner has filed this second petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.111 dated 15.05.2016 under Sections 120-B, 420, 406, 506 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Prize Chit and Money Circulation Schemes Banning Act, 1978, registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala.

¶15

Notice of motion was issued. 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 as per the allegations in the FIR, the present petitioner was stated to be General Manager of Million Miles

¶18

Vineet Gulati 2017.04.19 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRM No.M-3994 of 2017

¶20

-2-

¶21

Infrastructure and Developer Ltd. Company and the company has cheated the people for about `10 crore. It is stated that the company floated the scheme to double the money in one year, three years etc. and defrauded so many people.

¶22

At the time of arguments, learned State counsel argued that present petitioner has also share in the company. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was already arrested and released on regular bail in another FIR having almost similar allegations.

¶23

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, nature and gravity of the offence, I find that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and no ground is made for releasing the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

¶24

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

¶25

dismissed.

¶26

April 18, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE

¶27

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶28

Vineet Gulati 2017.04.19 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Sachin Mishra v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Mishra 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

Malkit Singh Vs U T Chandigarh

Parmeet Singh Bedi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Inderjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Karandeep Singh @ Harry Vs State of Punjab

Jagdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harjinder Singh @ Rinku Vs State of Punjab