High CourtsSingle Bench

Prateek Nepalia vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 26 November 2020 · Citation: (2020) 11 P&H CK 0120

HON’BLE JUDGES
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 406, 420
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 29315 Of 2020 (O&M)
Ask AI about this case

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

14 paragraphs · 289 words

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J

Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. Through this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case

bearing FIR No.198 dated 03.06.2020 registered under Sections 406,420 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station DLF, Gurugram.

Today it has been informed through email that Mr. Navkesh Singh, Advocate, representing the petitioner, has been found positive for Covid-19.

Learned State counsel, on the instructions from ASI Gianander, points out that the petitioner was granted interim bail by a Coordinate Bench of this

Court vide order dated 25.09.2020, but he has not joined the investigation till date. On the last date of hearing i.e. 09.11.2020, learned counsel

representing the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been suffering from illness for the last one month and on recuperating from the illness,

he would appear before the Investigating Agency and join the investigation. However, the order has not been complied with. Learned State counsel

has drawn the attention of this Court towards page 11 of the paper book, which indicates that there are fifteen FIRs pending investigation on similar

allegations, against the petitioner, including the present FIR.

While referring to the reply filed by way of affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police, DLF, Gurugram, the learned State counsel points out that

during investigation, while checking the bank account of the petitioner, a number of transactions in crores of rupees were found to have taken place in

the year 2019 and, thus, recovery of a huge amounts in this case as well as in other cases is yet to be effected from the petitioner.

In view of the above, no further indulgence is warranted. Consequently, the present petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.