Allowed

Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jul 2018CRM-M/19040/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. relying on the lapse of over 12 years between the alleged crime and the FIR registration, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The interim bail order dated 7.5.2018 was made absolute. The petitioner was directed to join investigation as called and abide by conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-19040 of 2018

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:16.7.2018

Hardeep Singh

.....Petitioner v.

State of Punjab

.....Respondent ....

Present: Mr. I.S. Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Monika Jalota, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶11

Mr. Ashdeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

¶12

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶13

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.197 dated 30.12.2017 registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana.

¶14

Notice of motion has been issued in this case.

¶15

Ms. Monika Jalota, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab

¶16

has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Ashdeep Singh, learned Advocate appeared for the complainant and contested this petition.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the

¶18

record.

¶19

Harpal Singh Parmar 2018.07.18 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

Cr. Misc. No.M-19040 of 2018

¶21

[2]

¶22

From the record, I find that the FIR in the present case has been got registered on the complaint of Jagjit Singh. As per the allegations, `5 lakhs were given to the present petitioner in the year 2005 and the petitioner had given fake Visa to the complainant. It is also in the FIR that he again contacted the petitioner in the year 2008 for the same purpose.

¶23

Keeping in view the fact that the payment was given in 2005 but the FIR has been registered in the year 2017 after the gap of more than 12 years, the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is not required for custodial interrogation; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find merit in this petition and the same is allowed. The interim order dated 7.5.2018 passed by this Court granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶24

However, nothing stated above will constitute my opinion on

¶25

the merits of the case.

¶26

July 16, 2018. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶27

Harpal Singh Parmar 2018.07.18 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardeep Singh 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

Gulab Singh Vs State of Haryana

Ajit Singh Vs State of Haryana

Kulwinder Kaur Vs State of Haryana

Tasim Vs State of Haryana

Karandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bhupinder Singh @ Bhinder Vs State of Punjab