Dismissed

Deepak Puri v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jul 2018CRM-M/24342/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving allegations of forging a divorce deed to obtain a passport. The court held, without detailed discussion on merits, that due to serious allegations, the case was not a fit one for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail was dismissed as the case was not considered a fit case for its grant.

Deepak Puri Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

208

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

¶4

CRM No.M-24342 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 05, 2018

Deepak Puri

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶11

Present: Ms.Rishma Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Ramandeep Sandhu, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶13

¶14

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶15

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.193 dated 06.09.2017 under Sections 465, 467, 471 IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act, registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

From the record, I find that FIR has been registered after verification of the divorce deed by the District Judge, Moga, as the same Vineet Gulati was found forged. As per the prosecution version, present petitioner, who 2018.07.09 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRM No.M-24342 of 2018 -2-

¶20

was a travel agent, has facilitated and created this forged divorce deed for applying passport and the divorce decree has been submitted along with documents.

¶21

As per the police file, enquiry has been conducted and in the enquiry, after giving opportunity to the parties of being heard, the Inquiry Officer nominated the present petitioner for fabricating the documents.

¶22

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the serious allegations against the present petitioner, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, 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

July 05, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶26

Vineet Gulati 2018.07.09 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Deepak Puri v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Puri 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

Kulwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Deepti Grover and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Vijay Vs State of Haryana

Rachpal Singh @ Dhola Vs State of Punjab

Mandeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Virpal Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.