AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
19 paragraphs · 346 wordsP.B. Bajanthri, J.
(1.) In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for regular bail in case FIR No.44 dated 10.05.2018, under Section 420 IPC and offences under
Sections 465/467/471-120-B IPC added later on, registered at Police Cantt, Ferozepur.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner's name has not been incorporated in the FIR. His name has been cropped
up on the statement of one Balvir Singh. Balvir Singh had the benefit of( anticipatory bail. It was also submitted that petitioner is not facing any other
case. Therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of regular bail.
(3.) On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions from Inspector Paramjit while resisting the petitioner's contentions submitted that even
though petitioner's name has been cropped up on the statement of Balvir Singh-main accused, at the same time, perusal of the affidavits filed by
Rashbir Singh, Jagveer Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Harnam Singh, Harbans Singh, Gagandeep and many other persons that petitioner had obtained money
from them for either arranging for job or for some official favour with the police and higher authorities. The matter is still under investigation stage.
Once the investigation is over further action would be taken against the petitioner. It was further submitted that money transaction between the job
aspirants as well as taking certain alleged favour from the Government or police, crores of rupees have been transacted as is evident from the
affidavit of the aforesaid persons. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to regular bail.
(4.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(5.) Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner that he is involved in FIR No.44 dated 10.05.2018 during the course of
the investigation police have received affidavits of the above mentioned persons relating to making certain money transaction which runs to crores.
That apart matter is still under investigation. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
(6.) Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
(7.) At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition and it is permitted.