Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Harwinder Singh Vs. Unknown

Harwinder Singh vs Unknown

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Dec 18, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1055579

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Harwinder Singh

Respondent

Unknown

Excerpt

cr.misc. m 2959.o”1. in the high court for the states of punjab and haryana at chandigarh. cr.misc. m 2959.of 2012 date of decision:18.12.2012 harwinder singh .petitioner vs state of punjab ..respondent present mr.dps kahlon, advocate. mr.ankur jain,aag, punjab mr.vikas gupta, advocate.m.m.s.bedi,j. the petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of kuldip singh alleging that a sum of rs.4.00 lacs has been received by the petitioner to send his son abroad. a sum of rs.2.95 lacs has been returned. the petitioner has admitted his liability to the extent of rs.1.05 lacs at the preliminary stage of hearing of this petition. a sum of rs.1.00 lac has been returned to the complainant. mr.vikas gupta, advocate for complainant has intervened to oppose the petition for pre-arrest bail contending that the petitioner has got 10 blank signed cheques, issued by the complainant, in his possession and these are likely to be misused. no opinion can be formed regarding the cheques, alleged to be in possession of the petitioner, as claimed by the complainant but from the allegations of the complainant, it is apparent that there is some money dispute between the parties, who are closely related. in view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 24.9.2012 is hereby confirmed subject to all the conditions u/s 438(2) cr.misc. m 2959.o”2. cr.p.c.it will be open to the complainant to seek refund of money, on the basis of acknowledgment of debt, made by the petitioner before this court or any other forum. counsel for the complainant has insisted that a condition be imposed on the petitioner to return the cheques. no ground is made out to issue any such direction as it does not fall within the ambit, which can be given u/s 437 cr.p.c.december ,2012 ( m.m.s.bedi ) tsm judge

Full Judgment

Cr.Misc.

M 2959.o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Cr.Misc.

M 2959.of 2012 Date of decision:18.12.2012 Harwinder Singh .petitioner vs State of Punjab ..respondent Present Mr.DPS Kahlon, Advocate.

Mr.Ankur Jain,AAG, Punjab Mr.Vikas Gupta, Advocate.

M.M.S.BEDI,J.

The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Kuldip Singh alleging that a sum of Rs.4.00 lacs has been received by the petitioner to send his son abroad.

A sum of Rs.2.95 lacs has been returned.

The petitioner has admitted his liability to the extent of Rs.1.05 lacs at the preliminary stage of hearing of this petition.

A sum of Rs.1.00 lac has been returned to the complainant.

Mr.Vikas Gupta, Advocate for complainant has intervened to oppose the petition for pre-arrest bail contending that the petitioner has got 10 blank signed cheques, issued by the complainant, in his possession and these are likely to be misused.

No opinion can be formed regarding the cheques, alleged to be in possession of the petitioner, as claimed by the complainant but from the allegations of the complainant, it is apparent that there is some money dispute between the parties, who are closely related.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 24.9.2012 is hereby confirmed subject to all the conditions u/s 438(2) Cr.Misc.

M 2959.o”

2. Cr.P.C.It will be open to the complainant to seek refund of money, on the basis of acknowledgment of debt, made by the petitioner before this court or any other forum.

Counsel for the complainant has insisted that a condition be imposed on the petitioner to return the cheques.

No ground is made out to issue any such direction as it does not fall within the ambit, which can be given u/s 437 Cr.P.C.December ,2012 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial