Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.
Seema Rani - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M No. 25630 of 2021
Decided On : 07-07-2021
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - The court denied the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving allegations of cheating and running a fake gold racket. The court found the allegations serious in nature and expressed apprehension that granting bail may lead to the commission of similar offences in the future.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of cheating and running a fake gold racket. The petitioner claimed to have been falsely implicated and argued that the matter was of a civil nature, but had been given a criminal color.
Finding of the Court:
The court denied the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail, citing the serious nature of the allegations and the ongoing investigation. The court expressed apprehension that granting bail may lead to the commission of similar offences in the future.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving serious allegations of cheating and running a fake gold racket.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation warranted denial of anticipatory bail, expressing concerns about potential future offences and tampering with evidence or witnesses.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail.
JUDGMENT
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. Through the instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 243 dated 24.06.2021, registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC, (later on Sections 506 and 120-B IPC were added later on), at Police Station Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is a matter of civil nature, but has been given a criminal colour. There is no direct link between the complainant and petitioner. The allegations are totally based on presumptions.
3. Notice of motion.
4. On the asking of this Court, Mr. Ashok Singh Chaudhary, Addl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
5. At this stage, Mr. Akshit Aggarwal, Advocate, appears and files vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant.
6. Learned State counsel assisted by the counsel for the complainant, while opposing the prayer for bail, submits that the petitioner along with other accused persons is running a fake gold racket and cheated the complainant by inducing him to deliver a total amount of Rs. 1,35,00000/- on the pre-text of supplying 19 kgs. gold. He further submits that as the investigation is still going on and there are specific allegations against the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of the bail.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and the investigation is going on. There is an apprehension that in case the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, she may commit such or similar offence again in future and every effort may be made by her to either tamper with the evidence or win over the witnesses.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to grant her the concession of anticipatory bail.
10. Dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
