CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sandeep Singh alias Sonu vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 25 February 2011 · Citation: (2011) 02 P&H CK 0178

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S. Saron, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 120B, 201B, 406, 420, 467
CASE NUMBER
CRM No. 9099 of 2011 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-1812 of 2011
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 · 411 words

S.S. Saron, J.

CRM No. 9099 of 2011

1.

The offence u/s 467 IPC which has been added by the police during investigation is added in the headnote of the petition. The Registry to carry out necessary correction in this regard.

2.

The criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

CRM No. M-1812 of 2011

3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the headnote of the Petitioner offence u/s 201B has been inadvertently written and he may be allowed to correct it to Section 120B IPC.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is permitted to correct the same.

5.

Heard counsel for the parties.

6.

The Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC; besides, Section 467 IPC, which was added later.

7.

The FIR, in the case, has been registered on the complaint of Tota singh who has alleged that he had settled with Dasonda Singh for sending his son Gurdas Singh to Canada by paying an amount of Rs. 3.85 lacs. The complainant gave an amount of Rs. 1 lac to Jasbir Singh, Rs. 2 lacs was deposited in the account of Sandeep Singh (Petitioner) and Rs. 85,000/-was deposited in the accounts of Dasonda Singh. However, three years have lapsed, neither the son of the complainant was sent abroad nor the money was returned.

8.

In terms of the order dated 24.12.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, it was observed that during investigation, the passbook of Sandeep Singh (Petitioner) was recovered and an entry of Rs. 1 lac was found in the same whereby cash was deposited on 15.10.2008 and it was subsequently withdrawn gradually on several dates through A.T.M. withdrawls. The matter has now been compromised.

9.

Mr. Sandeep Arora, learned Counsel for the complainant, has submitted that both the parties have compromised the matter. Sandeep Singh alias Sonu (Petitioner) has agreed to return the amount of Rs. 1 lac after his release from custody. The compromise deed dated 27.01.2011 has been submitted in Court today, which is taken on record.

10.

The case is triable by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. The trial in the case is likely to take time; besides, the parties have compromise the matter.

11.

In the facts and circumstances, the Petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court shall be admitted to bail.