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Dismissed as withdrawn.”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withdrawn.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 :::