High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab - CRM-67463-m-2005  RD-P&H 10406 (13 November 2006)
Jaswinder Singh vs State of Punjab
Present : Mr.Vinod Khunger, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.B.S.Baath, AAG, Punjab.
The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.226, dated 24.10.2005, registered under Section 420 of the IPC, at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that vide order dated 13.12.2005, the petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail. It is contended that as the petitioner has joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required, the aforementioned order be made absolute. It is argued that the travel agent is one Anuj Kumar Anand, Proprietor of M/S Yes Visa Worldwide. Com. The complainant paid money to the aforementioned individual. The petitioner is the victim of a fraud, played by Anuj Kumar Anand, who has not been arrested by the police. This fact is evidenced by a cheque of Rs.1.20 lac, issued by Anuj Kumar Anand, while returning a part of money, received by him. It is further argued that as the petitioner was himself the victim of the fraud, he filed a complaint before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh, which is still pending. The petitioner has also filed similar applications, before the Senior Superintendents of Police, Ferozepur and Amritsar but no action has been initiated thereon.
Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the other hand, contends Crl.Misc.No.67463 M of 2005 ::2::
that the allegations, levelled in the FIR, are correct. The petitioner received money from the complainant to send his nephew and another relative abroad. When the petitioner failed to send them abroad, the complainant demanded his money. In lieu thereof, the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs.1.20 lac by forging the signatures of Anuj Kumar Anand. It is further contended that these facts have been verified during investigation.
The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to unravel the ramifications of the entire controversy, namely, the mode and manner in which the petitioner duped the complainant.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
While granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the order dated 13.12.2005, noticed the following facts :- " I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in this case, the money was not paid to the petitioner but the same was paid to one of the co-accused Anuj Kumar Anand, who is the proprietor of M/S Yes Visa Worldwide.Com and the cheque of some of the amount was also given by the said persons."
As noticed herein above, counsel for the State of Punjab has submitted that the police, upon verification, have found that the cheque, allegedly issued by Anuj Kumar Anand, was actually forged by the petitioner. The petitioner received money from the complainant with a promise to send his nephew and another relative abroad. The petitioner has duped an innocent villager of his hard earned money and, therefore, does Crl.Misc.No.67463 M of 2005 ::3::
not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The grant of interim anticipatory bail does not necessarily entail confirmation thereof.
In view of what has been stated above, the present petition is dismissed.
Nothing, stated herein, shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy.
( RAJIVE BHALLA )
November 10, 2006. JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.