High CourtsSingle Bench(2017) 01 P&H CK 0214

Prem Singh @ Premi vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 16 January 2017 · Citation: (2017) 3 RCRCriminal 296

HON’BLE JUDGES
Surinder Gupta, J.
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CRM-M No. 42584 of 2016

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

10 paragraphs · 420 words

Surinder Gupta, J. (Oral)—The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners in case FIR No. 85 dated 09.02.2015 for offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 406, 465, 468 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC'') at Police Station City Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

2.

Heard.

3.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he was mediator in a transaction between the complainant-Ram Lal and vendors, namely, Nirmala and Richhpal relating to the property bearing house no. D-662 situated in Faridabad as defined by khasra number in the FIR. Later on it came to the notice of complainant that there was a loan of Rs. 25 lacs on the house and earlier transactions were also there.

4.

Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant submit that being mediator of the transaction, petitioner should have disclosed the loan outstanding against the property in dispute and previous transactions relating to the same to complainant. It was at the behest of petitioner that complainant, who relied on him, got cheated.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has simply facilitated the deal between the parties and had also disclosed all the facts to complainant, which were intimated to him by the original owner. There was no lapse on the part of petitioner.

6.

Keeping in view submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find that this is a case based on documentary evidence and custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required. This petition is allowed and petitioner is directed to surrender before the police and join investigation within a week. In the event of his arrest being required, he shall be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer till presentation of challan, subject to the following terms:-

(i) that petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

(ii) that petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

(iv) that petitioners will seek regular bail on the presentation of challan in Court.