Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ATTAR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ATTAR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA - CRM-10004-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 785 (15 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CRL. MISC. NO. 10004-M OF 2006

DATE OF DECISION: 27.2.2006

ATTAR SINGH

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA

...RESPONDENT

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
PRESENT: Mr N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana.

-----

ORDER:

Heard.

Offence alleged is under sections 406/420 IPC.

Case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, while acting as a broker, took a sum of Rs.90,000/- from Mahesh Kumar, who wanted to purchase a jeep from one Yogesh Kumar and misappropriated the amount.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a broker and there was an earlier deal, in which Dipal Kumar, brother of Mahesh Kumar and one Dinesh Kumar had purchased a jeep through the petitioner from Ashok Kumar and had not paid the full price, on account of which dispute was pending and Ashok Kumar had lodged FIR against Dipal Kumar and Dinesh Kumar vide Annexure P-2 and in this background, present FIR has been lodged. It is pointed out that in these circumstances, arrest of the petitioner for recovery of the disputed amount is not called for; the petitioner will face proceedings in accordance with law and will join investigation and will not misuse the concession of anticipatory bail.

Without expressing any final opinion on merits, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of investigation or three months whichever is later during which the petitioner will be free to apply for regular bail to the concerned court in accordance with law.

In the event of arrest, the petitioner will be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer within two weeks from today on the conditions that the petitioner will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; he will not interfere with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly; he will not leave the country without the previous permission of the court; he will associate with the investigation as and when called by the police and that he will surrender the passport, if any.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

February 27, 2006 ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

sanjeev JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.