The single judge bench of the Karamjit Singh of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jamshed Vs State of Haryana granted bail to the petitioner for the FIR registered under sections Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the petition is filed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner having FIR registered under sections Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case. Further, as per the prosecution story, the complainant wanted to purchase a second-hand Fortuner car and due to this came into contact with the accused persons and the present petitioner. Thereafter, they went inside the showroom after completing all the formalities under the pretext of purchasing of the car after waiting for the long time, the complainant went inside the showroom and found that the accused persons have defrauded the complainant. It was contended that the complainant has no document to show that he ever entrusted the aforesaid amount of Rs.19.5 lakhs to the complainant. The counsel for the petitioner further contends that the prosecution is relying upon one CCTV footage but even the same is not clear and it is a matter of evidence as to whether the said CCTV footage is of the showroom situated in Ambala. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that as per the income tax returns of complainant which are available with the police, the complainant was not having enough income to pay amount of Rs.19.5 lakhs for purchase of fortuner car. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner has joined the investigation with the police and has fully cooperated with the police during the investigation
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has contended that on the pretense of giving him a Fortuner car, the petitioner and his companions cheated the complainant of Rs. 19.5 lakhs; nevertheless, they failed to deliver any such car and did not reimburse the aforementioned sum. The complainant's counsel claims that the complainant owns his own business, receives a regular income, and has taken out loans from friends and family in addition to lending the accused individuals the aforementioned sum of Rs. 19.5 lakhs, which they have yet to refund.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that the complainant/prosecution has failed to produce any document with regard to handing over of Rs.19.5 lakhs by the complainant to the petitioner and other accused persons. As has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, the complainant was not having enough personal resources to purchase a car worth Rs.19.5 lakhs. It is a matter of evidence as to whether he took financial assistance from his friends and family members to purchase a car worth Rs.19.5 lakhs. The petitioner has joined the investigation with the police. The State counsel on instructions from SI Lal Chand has apprised the Court that now the petitioner is not required by the police for any further investigation. The hon’ble court granted bail to the petitioner.
CASE NAME- Jamshed Vs State of Haryana
CITATION- CRM-M-45683 of 2021
CORUM- Karamjit Singh
DATE- 29.11.22
Read Judgment
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments