Allowed

Naveen Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2018CRM-M/18808/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, converting the interim order dated 04.05.2018 into an absolute bail order. The court observed that the petitioner had joined the investigation and the Investigating Officer stated his continued presence was not required.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; interim bail granted via interim order dated 04.05.2018 made absolute.

Naveen Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CRM-M No.18808 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No.18808 of 2018 Decided on: 06.09.2018

Naveen Kumar

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

¶11

Present : Mr. G.S. Madaan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. M.S. Nagra, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.30 dated 07.03.2018, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station City Jalalabad, District Fazilka.

¶15

The operative part of the order dated 04.05.2018, vide which interim anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioner, is reproduced as under:-

¶16

“.... Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been registered on the ground that the petitioner along with co-accused Jagdish had forged signatures of the complainant on an agreement to sell. It is furthersubmitted that the petitioner and his co-accused Jagdish have filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 31.03.2016 and the matter is sub judice before the Civil Court. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and give his specimen

¶17

MOHD YAKUB 2018.09.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRM-M No.18808 of 2018

¶19

¶20

signatures/handwriting for attestation of the same with the signatures on the agreement to sell.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon report of the Forensic Expert (Annexure P-10), vide which an opinion is given that the signatures on the agreement to sell are tallied with the standard signatures of the complainant and the signatures are by the same person.

¶22

Notice of motion for 06.09.2018 ....”

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, in pursuance to the order dated 04.05.2018, has already appeared before the Investigating Officer and has joined the investigation.

¶24

Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Malook Singh, has not disputed the aforesaid fact and submits that the petitioner is no more required for further investigation.

¶25

In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 04.05.2018 is made absolute subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶26

06.09.2018

¶27

yakub

¶28

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶29

MOHD YAKUB 2018.09.07 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Naveen Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen 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

Devender @ Deva Vs State of Haryana

Arun Khatri & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ikrar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Sukhdev Singh Vs Darwara Singh

Gagandeep Vs State of Punjab

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.