Jai Singh Rajpurohit vs State Of Punjab on 20 September, 2017

104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-35205 of 2017
Date of decision: 20.09.2017

Jai Singh Rajpurohit
….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
….Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present: Mr. Vikas Cuccria, Advocate
for the petitioner.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN J. (Oral)

This is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the

petitioner in FIR No.103 dated 18.06.2017 registered under Section 406

IPC at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur.

While dismissing the first anticipatory bail application on

08.09.2017, the following order was passed:-

“This is a petition under Section 438 Cr. P.C. for
grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 103 dated 18.6.2017
(Annexure P-1) under Section 406 IPC, registered at
Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the
petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the present
petition.

Dismissed as withdrawn.”

Counsel for the petitioner submits that though there are no

change in the circumstances, however, certain facts were not brought to

the notice of the Court. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that

as per the allegations in the FIR, an amount of Rs.18,40,000/- was paid

by the complainant to the petitioner out of which an amount of

1 of 2
24-09-2017 00:19:11 :::
Rs.9,50,000/- were transferred into the bank accounts of the petitioner

on 03 different occasions while the remaining amount was paid in cash.

Counsel for the petitioner states that after receiving the amount, the

petitioner has delivered the consignment of rice which the complainant

is denying. However, nothing has been placed on record to prove the

said averments especially when the case was argued at length when the

first bail application was filed and the same was dismissed as

withdrawn. The same position is now in the present application as no

grounds have come on record to entertain the second bail application.

The perusal of the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur

dated 02.08.2017 show that on the complaint filed by the complainant,

an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Hoshiarpur and during the enquiry, it was found that the

petitioner/accused has not supplied 975 quintals of rice to the

complainant as per the dealing and despite execution of the agreement,

the petitioner/accused has failed to return the amount. Since a huge

amount of Rs.18,40,000/- is involved, no ground for entertaining the

second bail application is made out.

Dismissed.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
JUDGE

20.09.2017
yakub

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

2 of 2
24-09-2017 00:19:12 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *