Dismissed

Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Feb 2019CRM-M/41771/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The single judge held that custodial interrogation is necessary to obtain the petitioner's specimen signatures for comparison, thus denying the requested relief.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed as the petitioner's custody is necessary for obtaining specimen signatures.

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

CRM-M-41771-2018

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-41771-2018

¶5

Date of decision: 06.02.2019

Krishan Kumar

..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

¶14

Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶15

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Through this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 474 dated 17.07.2018 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Surajkund, Faridabad, District Faridabad.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that it is a civil dispute amongst the parties. Petitioner is ready to join investigation.

¶18

On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-complainant vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ground that agreements which were allegedly forged by the petitioner are yet to be recovered from him. His signatures are also required for comparison, therefore, his custodial interrogation is very much necessary.

¶19

RISHU KATARIA 2019.02.12 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-41771-2018 -2-

¶21

Considering the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, but without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail, because his custodial interrogation is definitely required for obtaining his specimen signatures for comparison with his standard handwriting.

¶22

The instant petition being meritless is dismissed.

¶23

February 06, 2019 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE

¶24

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶25

RISHU KATARIA 2019.02.12 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr.

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

Parmod Nagpal Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sher Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab

Pawan Bhatia Vs Cargo Motors

Anita Devi and Ors. Vs Ashok Kumar and Anr.

Kiran Bala Vs Parvesh Arora Alias Parvesh Thakural

Jaswinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.