IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Criminal Misc.20858-M of 2008

DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 27, 2008

DHEERAJ KUMAR ....... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA .... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

PRESENT: Mr. Rajnish Narula, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Narender Sura, AAG,
Haryana.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
This petition under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.292 dated 22.8.2007 under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 81/82 of the Registration Act, Police
Station, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has joined
investigation. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and the petitioner is no more
required by the Investigating Agency. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the
petitioner would make himself available for investigation, as and when required. Learned
counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from Criminal Misc.20858-M of 2008 2 ASI
Raghunath of P.S., City Jagadhri, has confirmed the fact that the petitioner has joined the
investigation and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner at this stage.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed. Order
dated 19.8.2008 is hereby made absolute and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the
petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the
Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions :-

i) the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required;

ii) the petitioner shall 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; and

iii)the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

This order shall enure till 10 days after the petitioner receives a notice of filing of final
report u/s 173, Cr.P.C, within which period, the petitioner would be at liberty to apply for
regular bail.
August 27, 2008
( AJAI LAMBA )
JUDGE
 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-11328 of 2009
Date of decision: 7.5.2009

Jaswant Singh and another

Versus
State of Punjab

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present: Mr.P.K.Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.
SABINA, J.

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure ("Cr.P.C. for short) for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 118 dated
29.3.2009, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for
short), registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar.

As per the prosecution case, petitioner No.1 executed an agreement to sell in favour of the
complainant on 25.11.2007 with regard to the land measuring 1 kanal situated in village
Sultanwind, Sub Urban Mahal-2, Amritsar for a sum of Rs.14,50,000/-. It was also agreed
that Rs.35,000/- would be paid extra for the boundary wall constructed on the plot. Sale
deed was agreed to be registered on or before 25.2.2008. However, on Criminal Misc. No.M-
11328 of 2009 -2- 5.2.2008, petitioner No.1 sold the property in question to Santokh Singh
and Narinder Kaur for a consideration of Rs.23,00,000/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that dispute between the parties was
purely civil in nature. Hence, no offence of cheating or forgery was made out. Learned State
counsel, on the other hand, has opposed this petition and has submitted that the petitioners
are required for custodial interrogation.

As per the prosecution case, petitioner No.1 executed an agreement to sell in favour of
the complainant and received the earnest money. However, instead of getting the sale deed
executed in favour of the complainant, petitioner No.1 sold the property in question to some
other persons. Petitioner No.2 is attesting witness of the sale deed alleged to have been
executed in favour of Santokh Singh and Narinder Kaur.

Since, custodial interrogation of petitioner No.1 Jaswant Singh might be necessary,

this petition seeking anticipatory bail qua him is dismissed.

So far as petitioner No.2 Kuljit Singh is concerned, he is attesting witness of the sale
deed executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of Santokh Singh and Narinder Kaur. His case is
on a different footing and hence, this petition qua him for grant of anticipatory bail is liable
to be allowed.
Accordingly, in the event of arrest, petitioner No.2 Kuljit Singh be admitted to interim bail
subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting
Officer. Criminal Misc. No.M-11328 of 2009 -3- However, he shall join the investigation as
and when required by the Investigating Agency; shall not temper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Petition
stands disposed of accordingly.

(SABINA)
JUDGE
May 07, 2009
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Bail Appl..No. 3200 of 2008

THOMASKUTTY, S/O. LATE ABRAHAM, ... Petitioner

Vs
STATE OF KERALA, ... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.TOM JOSE (PADINJAREKARA)

For Respondent PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

Dated :19/05/2008
ORDER
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

Bail application No.3200 of 2008

Dated this the 19th day of May, 2008

ORDER

1. Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime
No.339/2004 of Karuvilangad Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under
Sections 417, 418, 420 and 421 read with Section 34 IPC. The other accused were granted
anticipatory bail by order of this court in B.A. No.4924/05.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and other
circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, a direction is issued to the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned to
release the petitioner on bail for a period of one month in the event of his arrest in connection
with the above case on his executing a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only)
with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the BA NO.3200/08 2 satisfaction of the
said officer and subject to the following conditions:

1. Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. on all
Mondays.
2. The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by
the Investigating Officer.

3. The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he
attempt to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution.
4. Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

5. Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail in the
meanwhile. If the petitioner commits breach of the above conditions, the bail granted to him
shall be liable to be cancelled.

The application is allowed as above.

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE
 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

CRM No. M-10773 of 2009 (O&M)

Decided on:- 29.05.2009

Amarjit Singh Petitioner

Versus
State of Punjab .Respondent

Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri

Present Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. APS Mann, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Rajinder Mahajan, Advocate for the complainant.

K. C. Puri, J.(Oral )

Petitioner- Amarjit Singh has applied for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 68
dated 14.3.2009,under Section 420 IPC, P. S Rajpura City.

Learned State counsel has stated at bar that petitioner has joined investigation but he
is required for further investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at bar that
amount of Rs.7,00,000/- has been deposited in the Court vide challan dated 11.5.2009.
Photocopy of the challan has also been placed on the file. So, in these circumstances, as the
matter involved in this case is in respect of cheating of Rs.7,00,000/- on the pretext of selling
of land which is not owned by the petitioner and that amount has been deposited. So, without
commenting on the merits of the case, order dated 22.4.2009, is hereby made absolute on the
following conditions:-

1. that petitioner shall join investigation as and when required by the police;

2. that he shall not leave the country without the permission of the court and

3. that he shall surrender his pass port, if any, before the trial Court.

May 29, 2009 ( K.C. Puri ) Mamta Judge

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx