CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Udhey Singh @ Udham Singh and Another vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 13 December 2010 · Citation: (2010) 12 P&H CK 0462

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.M.S. Bedi, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous M 23347 of 2010
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

6 paragraphs · 387 words

M.M.S. Bedi,J.—The Petitioners seek concession of pre-arrest bail in a case, registered at the instance of Hakam Singh alleging that a sum of Rs. 6.50 lacs had been paid by him to the Petitioners to send his son,namely, Jatinder Singh abroad. As per the allegations in the FIR, a bogus cheque of Rs. 3.50 lacs of ICICI bank, purporting to be the money, returned out of the sum of Rs. 6.50 lacs was given to the complainant but the same has now again be taken back by the Petitioners.

2.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has contended that the son of the complainant has already gone abroad and that with a sole objective to harass the Petitioners and recover money from them, they have been falsely implicated by the complainant in the present case.

3.

Learned Counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition for pre-arrest bail by intervening.

4.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The cheque, which was allegedly issued by the Petitioners was not in the name of the complainant but was in the name of Dev Automobiles. Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that Dev Automobiles is a company being run by the Commission Agents of the complainant.

5.

It appears that there is some money dispute between the parties and that the complainant can always recover the amount by establishing that the Petitioners owe money to the complainant. The statement of complainant''s son has not been recorded till date. Without expression of any opinion on merits of the case, it is sufficient to observe that the Petitioners have already joined the investigation. It does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation but is a case of recovery of money or settlement of accounts.

6.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 13.8.2010 is hereby confirmed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the Petitioners, they will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that the Petitioners will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation. Nothing mentioned in the order will affect the merits of the case. Any observation made is solely for the purpose of granting pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners.