High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Raj Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 22 February 2017 · Citation: (2017) 02 P&H CK 0264

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3863>Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a>, <a href=3863-438>Section 438</a> - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest · <a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-420>Section 420</a> - Cheating and dishonestl
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
M-22866 of 2016 (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

26 paragraphs · 258 words
1.

This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under

Section 438 Cr.P.C praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner in case F.I.R. No.52 dated 18.6.2016 under section 420 I.P.C,

registered at Police Station, Phool, District Bathinda.

2.

The genesis of the dispute is an agreement to sell dated

22.7.2015 that was allegedly entered into between the complainant and the

present petitioner in respect of a plot. As per agreement, the total sale

consideration was Rs.6,85000/- and out of which the complainant being the

vendee had paid Rs.3 lacs as earnest money. Allegations are that inspite of

the complainant being ready to deliver his part of the obligation, the

accused/present petitioner has transferred the plot in the name of his wife.

3.

It has gone uncontroverted that the complainant has already

instituted a suit for specific performance on the strength of the agreement to

sell dated 22.7.2015.

4.

The complainant is present in person and is duly identified by

H.C Jaswinder Singh.

5.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has furnished a

demand draft of Rs.3,70,000/- drawn in the name of the complainant but the

complainant has refused to accept the same.

6.

Learned State counsel apprises the Court that in pursuance to

the order of interim protection granted to the petitioner, he has already

joined the investigation.

7.

In the considered view of this Court, custodial interrogation of

the petitioner, as such, would not be warranted. Accordingly, the present

petition is allowed. The order dated 12.7.2016, passed by this Court, is

made absolute.