Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/44147/2013 of VAKIL CHAND SHARMA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 31 December 2013
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-44147 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: December 31, 2013 Vakil Chand Sharma .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Crl.M.No.M-44147 of 2013(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-44147 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: December 31, 2013
Vakil Chand Sharma
State of Haryana
v.
.....Petitioner
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present:Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.52242 of 2013
Requests for placing on record copy of complaint, Annexure P4.
The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Crl.M.No.M-44147 of 2013
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grantof anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.219, dated 1.8.2013,under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120B IPC,registered at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gonethrough the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed bylearned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide which application filed onbehalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Brief allegations are that petitioner in connivance with co-accused cheated innocent persons including the complainant on the pretextof appointing them in the Railway Department, issued fake employmentletters and extorted money from the complainant and some other persons.
It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for thepetitioner-accused that he has not received any money from the complainant and that he has been falsely implicated in this case as he was cheated by co-accused Sunil against whom he had also filed a criminal complaint and itwas he who falsely implicated him in this case.
However, the plea cannot be accepted as complainant hadspecifically named the present petitioner and stated that all the three boyswho were issued fake employment letters by co-accused and who had takenhuge amount from them were taken to petitioner and co-accused Surenderand both of them got them fraudulently posted with a gate man andfraudulent payment of `7110/- as one month wages were also given to them,which prima facie shows that petitioner is in connivance with the co-accused in this act of cheating. Hence, his custodial interrogation isnecessary.
In view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion onthe merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Vakil ChandSharma for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid ofany merit.
31.12.2013meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta)Judge