High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
HARKESH CHAND v. STATE OF PUNJAB - CRM-6506-2006  RD-P&H 351 (24 January 2006)
CRL. MISC. NO. 6506-M OF 2006
DATE OF DECISION: 16.2.2006
STATE OF PUNJAB
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
PRESENT: Mr S.S. Japra, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms Reeta Kohli, DAG, Punjab.
Offence alleged is under section 420 IPC.
Case against the petitioner is that he entered into an agreement to sell a house and received a sum of Rs. Nine lacs as earnest money, but he refused to execute the sale deed.
Counsel for the State says that there are other FIRs registered against the petitioner being FIR No.625 dated 17.6.2001, under section 307 IPC and Arms Act and FIR No.23 dated 8.1.2006, under sections 420/467 IPC for dishonour of cheque. It is further pointed out that a sum of Rs. Nine lacs was taken by the petitioner by misrepresenting that he was the owner, but later on he did not execute the sale deed on the ground that he was not the owner.
On 2.2.2006, the following order was passed:- "Counsel for the petitioner says that only a sum of Rs.two lacs is due and the matter is of accounting. He undertakes that the amount, which is due according to the petitioner, will be deposited in the trial court before the next date. The petitioner will also inform the complainant about proceedings in this court.
Notice of motion to AG, Punjab, for 16.2.2006." Counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of notice, which was sent on behalf of the petitioner to the complainant, the relevant part of which is as under:-
"The bail application came up before Hon'ble Mr Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, who was pleased to order vide order dt. 2.2.2006 that my client was to deposit Rs. Two Lacs in the Trial Court.
As per the orders of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Rs. Two Lacs was deposited in the Court of Ms. Jatinder Kaur, JMIC, Patiala, on 10.2.2005."
It is clear that the above notice is not in conformity with the orders of this court inasmuch as it is sought to be projected in the order that the court has directed deposit to be made instead of undertaking of the petitioner.
Counsel for the State points out that there is no explanation coming forth as to how only a sum of Rs.two lacs has been deposited and having regard to patent fraud of the petitioner and his being involved in other cases also, a case for bail is not made out at this stage.
Without expressing any opinion on merits and having regard to all the circumstances mentioned above, no ground is made out, at this stage, for grant of bail.
The petition is dismissed.
February 16, 2006 ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.