Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chanan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044813
2024:PHHC:044813
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(102)
CRM-M-7506-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-03.04.2024
Chanan Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
****
Present: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. S.K. Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab.
****
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 68 dated 01.05.2021,
under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police
Station, Julkan, District Patiala.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner after taking through the FIR
has submitted that the real dispute is that the complainant sold the ancestral
property including the share of the mother of the petitioner and when the
said issue was agitated, the present FIR has been lodged. He further submits
that there is a delay of two years in lodging the FIR and also claims parity
as another co-accused Ranjit Singh was granted the concession of pre-arrest
bail by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was in the foreign land when the said amount was deposited in
his account.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044813
2024:PHHC:044813
CRM-M-7506-2024 (O&M) -2-
3. Notice of motion.
4. Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of
respondent-State and has vehemently opposed the grant of any concession
to the petitioner and has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of "Hari Prasad @ Krishan Sahu Vs. State of
Chattisgarh", to submit that the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be fatal to
the case of prosecution. As regards the parity being claimed by the
petitioner qua Ranjit Singh, the same is not plausible, for the reason that no
money had been received or was deposited in the account of Ranjit Singh,
whereas, in the present case, a sum of Rs. 4,69,000/- was deposited in the
account of the petitioner.
5. The petitioner initially prayed and was granted sufficient
amount of time to deposit the said amount with the Court so that the matter
could be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre as the counsel
for the petitioner had argued that the parties are closely related to each
other. However, the petitioner could not demonstrate his bona fide.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and it is a case
where the petitioner has derived undue benefit on account of him
demonstrating that he and other co-accused have close contacts with the
officials of the relevant department and will help the victims get
employment there.
7. It is a serious matter where the public appointments are at
stake and persons like petitioner have played a fraud and cheated the
complainant by dishonestly inducing them to pay money in lieu of
Government job. The matter is still under investigation and it was only on
account of the petitioner being not present in India that the State could not
proceed against the petitioner.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044813
2024:PHHC:044813
CRM-M-7506-2024 (O&M) -3-
8. In light of the above, I do not find that the petitioner has been
able to carve out a case to grant him the extraordinary concession of
pre-arrest bail as his custody would be imperative to unearth the entire
scam.
9. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
(ALOK JAIN)
JUDGE
April 03, 2024
Parul
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
