LAWS(P&H)-2011-3-282

KULWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On March 25, 2011
KULWANT SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of above mentioned two applications filed by Kulwant Singh and Satish Kumar under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in case bearing First Information Report (for short "FIR") No.296 dated December 24th , 2010 under Sections 420, 408, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Santosh - complainant and Smt. Rakesh Rani, mother of Dhiraj, co-accused - non-applicant of the petitioner were partners in a gas agency in the name and style - M/s Bhuna Indane Gas Agency (for short, "the gas agency") at Bhuna. The gas agency was being run by Parshotam Dass Monga, husband of Rakesh Rani. Parshotam Dass Monga died on June 24 th , 2010. Thereafter, a dispute arose between the partners. In the FIR (Annexure P/1), the only allegations against petitioners - Kulwant Singh and Satish Kumar, are that Dhiraj and others, in connivance with the petitioners, played fraud upon the complainant, a fact which has not been disputed by the State counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further urged that in fact, Kulwant Singh petitioner, was named in the FIR because on November 30th , 2009, vide receipt (Annexure P-2), he gave loan of Rs. 5.00 lacs on interest to the complainant. In token thereof, the complainant issued a cheque (Annexure P/3). The cheque was presented in the bank, which was dishonoured on 10.12.2010 vide Annexure P/4. Kulwant Singh issued a notice to the complainant through his counsel. She did not refund the amount. On December 15th , 2010, Kulwant Singh-petitioner filed complaint (Annexure P/6) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against Santosh - complainant. As a counter-blast of the aforesaid complaint (Annexure P/6), filed by the petitioner, the present case has been registered against him by the complainant.

(3.) In view of the above, this Court is of opinion that it is a fit case to grant pr-arrest bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the applications for pre-arrest bail are accepted to the effect that the petitioners in the event of their arrest/surrender in the Court shall be released on bail by the arresting officer or such Court to its satisfaction till the challan/charge sheet is filed and till the applications for regular bail to be preferred by the petitioners are finally decided by the Court competent to try the case.