Parvesh @ Ramal Vs. Parvesh @ Ramal - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1121509
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-13-2014
AppellantParvesh @ Ramal
RespondentParvesh @ Ramal
Excerpt:
crl.m.no.m-166 of 2014 (o&m) -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh. crl.m.no.m-166 of 2014 (o&m) date of decision: january 13, 2014 parvesh @ ramal .....petitioner v. state of haryana ......respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice ram chand gupta present: mr.aayush gupta, advocate for the petitioner....ram chand gupta, j.(oral) the present petition filed under section 438 cr.p.c.is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case fir no.881, dated 30.10.2013, under sections 406, 420, 506 ipc, registered at police station city jind, district jind. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned additional sessions judge, jind, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. brief allegations are that petitioner and co-accused had obtained huge sum of money from the complainant as well as from other villagers on the representation that they would get exorbitant interest in installments. an amount of `11.00 lacs was received from the complainant and, however, as per police reply filed before the court of sessions, `10 crores were received by the petitioner from different persons by way of cheating and thereafter fled away from city jind. it has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that dispute, if any, is civil in nature and that co-accused meena devi was also granted interim bail by this court. it is also contended that there was another fir against the petitioner in which bail was granted. meenu 2014.01.14 12:20 however, there are very serious allegations against the i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crl.m.no.m-166 of 2014 (o&m) -2- petitioner-accused. his case is not similar to co-accused meena devi as there was no allegation that any money was paid to her. petitioner is the main accused. innocent persons were cheated. hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-parvesh @ ramal for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 13.1.2014 (ram chand gupta) meenu judge meenu 2014.01.14 12:20 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

Crl.M.No.M-166 of 2014 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.M.No.M-166 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 13, 2014 Parvesh @ Ramal .....Petitioner v.

State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner....RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.881, dated 30.10.2013, under Sections 406, 420, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station City Jind, District Jind.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Brief allegations are that petitioner and co-accused had obtained huge sum of money from the complainant as well as from other villagers on the representation that they would get exorbitant interest in installments.

An amount of `11.00 lacs was received from the complainant and, however, as per police reply filed before the Court of Sessions, `10 crores were received by the petitioner from different persons by way of cheating and thereafter fled away from city Jind.

It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that dispute, if any, is civil in nature and that co-accused Meena Devi was also granted interim bail by this Court.

It is also contended that there was another FIR against the petitioner in which bail was granted.

Meenu 2014.01.14 12:20 However, there are very serious allegations against the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.M.No.M-166 of 2014 (O&M) -2- petitioner-accused.

His case is not similar to co-accused Meena Devi as there was no allegation that any money was paid to her.

Petitioner is the main accused.

Innocent persons were cheated.

Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Parvesh @ Ramal for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

13.1.2014 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Meenu 2014.01.14 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh