High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 04 P&H CK 0147

Pardeep @ Sonu vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 5 April 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raj Mohan Singh, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CRM-M No.9429 of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 289 words

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(ORAL)

Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.190 dated 20.10.2016, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467,

468, 471, 204, 120-B IPC at Police Station Loharu District Bhiwani.

As per allegations in the FIR, the petitioner is an accused of forging particulars of the vehicles in connivance with Bank officials.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during course of investigation, Ex.Manager of the Bank Sandeep Kumar son of Balraj Singh made

a confessional statement to the police, admitting his guilt in the context of forging the documents of the vehicles. The only attribution qua the

petitioner was to the effect that on 18.01.2018, when petitioner was arrested on getting incriminating information against him, computer and photostat

documents were recovered. Accused Sandeep Kumar used to change the particulars of the vehicle and thereafter got the same photostated from

the computer shop run by the petitioner. For every page, the petitioner used to charge Rs.10/-. In the aforesaid manner, connivance of the petitioner

viz-a-viz. main accused Sandeep Kumar was alleged.

Learned State counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer submitted that the challan has already been presented.

The offence is triable by the Magistrate. The trial may take some time in its final culmination.

At this stage, without adverting to the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail, who is in custody since

18.01.2018.

In view of above, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the trial Court.

Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an expression of any opinion on merits of the case.