High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 06 P&H CK 0043

Ravinder Singh Chauhan vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 15 June 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Augustine George Masih
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
21305-2017

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

26 paragraphs · 281 words
1.

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the relief of pre-

arrest bail.

2.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

that as per the complainant-Dinesh Kumar, petitioner, admittedly, had only

taken an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-, which amount has already been returned

by him and therefore, there is no further liability as far as the alleged deal,

on the basis of which, fraud and other allegations have been made. He

contends that the petitioner is not involved in any further dealing with the

matter and therefore, the petitioner may be granted the benefit of the prayer

as has been made in the present petition as he is ready and willing to join

and cooperate with the investigation.

3.

A perusal of the FIR would show that the petitioner-Ravinder

Singh Chauhan is the person, who had persuaded the complainant to invest

in plot No.C-11, Yozna Saligrampura, Tehsil Sanganair, District Jaipur. It

is further mentioned specifically that he had accompanied the complainant

to Jaipur and introduced him to his brother-in-law Harsh Pratap Singh

Naruka. That apart, it is a specific case that petitioner-Ravinder Singh

Chauhan gave an affidavit regarding receipt of Rs. 1.70 crore, including the

sale consideration of Rs. 1.65 crore and Rs. 5 lacs as expenses of the documents

in addition to the 4 cheques of Axis Bank, which have been mentioned in

the FIR. The petitioner herein is, therefore, the king pin and the main

accused. It is in connivance and on his initiation and further giving effect

thereto, the alleged offences have been committed by him alongwith the co-

accused.

4.

The present petition, therefore, cannot be allowed and the same

stands dismissed.