High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Rakesh Oberoi v. State of Punjab - CRM-65184-M-2006  RD-P&H 12013 (5 December 2006)
Crl. Misc. No. 65184-M of 2006
DATE OF DECISION : 08.12.2006
State of Punjab
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. S.K. Pipat, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ramanjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Gill, AAG, Punjab.
Petitioner Rakesh Oberoi, apprehending his arrest in a non- bailable offence in case FIR No. 178 dated 25.6.2005 registered at Police Station Mohali under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467 IPC, has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the FIR.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner has planted a puppet tenant under a forged lease deed making it to appear to have been executed between complainant and the puppet tenant, who is Kanwar Pal Singh Cheema. Counsel contends that the petitioner is the tenant of the complainant and a dispute is already going on between them. He further contends that as far as the alleged lease deed is concerned, the petitioner has nothing to do with the same, as he neither signed it as a witness nor he is a beneficiary. Counsel for the petitioner contends that even the main accused Kanwar Pal Singh Cheema has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 39562-M of 2005.
It is further contended by earlier the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail on 4.8.2005 by Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar and while granting anticipatory bail, a condition was imposed upon the petitioner that after 15 days of presentation of the challan, he will seek regular bail from the competent court. Counsel further contends that after presentation of the challan, petitioner could not apply for regular bail within the said stipulated time and subsequently, vide order dated 14.8.2006, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, the said period to seek regular bail was extended for 7 days. The regular bail applied by the petitioner has been dismissed on 21.8.2006 by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali and the application for bail filed by the petitioner before Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, has also been dismissed. Counsel contends that in this case, the petitioner has been falsely implicated because of litigation pending between him and the complainant.
Vide order dated October 24, 2006, arrest of the petitioner was stayed subject to his appearing before the trial court and furnishing his regular bail bonds to its satisfaction. Counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of the interim order dated October 24, 2006, the petitioner has appeared before the trial court and has furnished his regular bail bonds, which have been accepted and attested on October 27, 2006. The State counsel, after having instructions from Ranjit Singh HC does not dispute these facts.
In view of the above, without commenting on the merits, the interim bail, granted vide order dated October 24, 2006, is made absolute.
Disposed of accordingly.
December 08, 2006 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.