Harpreet Singh Vs State of Haryana

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 28 Sep 2006 Criminal M. No. 50823-M of 2006 (2006) 19 CriminalCC 130
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Criminal M. No. 50823-M of 2006

Hon'ble Bench

Rajive Bhalla, J

Advocates

S.S. Dinarpur, for the Appellant; J.S. Toor, A.A.G., Haryana, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Dismissed

Acts Referred

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439#Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471

Judgement Text

Translate:

Rajive Bhalla, J.@mdashPrayer in this petition filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 560

dated 7.12.2005 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC, at Police Station City, Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of the FIR does not disclose the petitioner''s name, in fact, no role whatsoever has been

assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested, on the sole ground that he had obtained copies of the revenue record from the Patwari

for the purpose of getting a mutation sanctioned. It is contended that as the challan has been presented and the prosecution has cited 21 witnesses,

the trial is likely to be protracted and therefore, the petitioner be released on bail.

3. Counsel for the State of Haryana, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was an integral part of the conspiracy to sell land belonging to

the complainant. Though the petitioner is not named in the FIR, investigation has revealed that the petitioner obtained copies of the revenue record

for the purpose of getting a mutation sanctioned. It is prayed that as the petitioner was an active participant, in the commission of the offence,

complained of, the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

5. The petitioner''s name does not find mentioned in the FIR. During investigation the concerned Patwari, made a statement that the petitioner had

approached him for getting copies of the revenue record so as to get a mutation sanctioned. Be that as it may, as investigation is complete and the

challan has been presented, the trial is likely to be protracted as the prosecution has cited 21 witnesses.

6. Counsel for the respondent has not expressed any apprehension that if released on bail, the petitioner would tamper with the prosecution

evidence or in any manner subvert the process of trial.

7. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Jagadhri at Yamunagar.

8. Nothing, stated herein, shall be construed to be an expression of opinion, on the merits of the controversy.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Halts GST Assessment on Joint Development Deals
Oct
28
2025

Story

Supreme Court Halts GST Assessment on Joint Development Deals
Read More
Supreme Court Explains Demurrer Law in Neelkanth Realty Case
Oct
28
2025

Story

Supreme Court Explains Demurrer Law in Neelkanth Realty Case
Read More