Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 484 (PNJ)

Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2014-03-10

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.:- This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 105 dated 4.6.2013 under sections 452, 427, 420, 467, 468, 471, 380, 424 I.P.C registered at Police Station Sadar Amritsar, District Amritsar City. 2. On 12.11.2013, the following order was passed by this Court:- “As per Annexure P-5 to P-7, the car bearing registration No.PB-08R-8287, PB-58A-0777 and PB-02BC- 458 are with the registered owners and not with the petitioner. Adjourned to 11.12.2013. Meanwhile, petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. In the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer on his furnishing bail bonds/sureties to his satisfaction, subject to the conditions mentioned below as envisaged in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C:- i. a condition that the person shall make himself/themselves available for interrogation by Police Officer as and when required; ii. a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii. A condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; iv. such other condition as may be imposed under sub section (3) of Section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.” 3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 4. Perusal of the F.I.R in question would reveal that the complainant is Gurmeet Singh son of Jassa Singh. As per complainant’s version he had jointly owned a shop under the name of Singh Motor with the present petitioner namely Paramjit Singh and were doing the business of purchasing and selling vehicles. Allegation is that three vehicles bearing registration no. No.PB-08-R-8287, PB-58A-0777 and PB-02BC-458 have been sold by the petitioner without the consent of the complainant and as such the sale consideration has been misappropriated. 5. It is the stand of the petitioner that the vehicles are in possession with the registered owners. Even learned State counsel upon instructions from ASI Prem Pal Singh would confirm such fact. 6. No.PB-08-R-8287, PB-58A-0777 and PB-02BC-458 have been sold by the petitioner without the consent of the complainant and as such the sale consideration has been misappropriated. 5. It is the stand of the petitioner that the vehicles are in possession with the registered owners. Even learned State counsel upon instructions from ASI Prem Pal Singh would confirm such fact. 6. Essentially the genesis of the dispute is with regard to business dealings between two partners doing the business of sale and purchase of cars. It is not the case made out on behalf of the State that any complaint has been received from a third party with regard to the sale of the vehicles in question. It also stands conceded that the petitioner has since joined investigation. 7. At this stage, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner does not have clean antecedents inasmuch as he is involved in two other F.I.Rs i.e. F.I.R. No. 441/12 under sections 379, 411, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar and F.I.R No.461 dated 25.12.2011 under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120- B I.P.C registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. 8. Undisputedly, in F.I.R. No. 105 dated 4.6.2013 the petitioner has already been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2013 and in the second F.I.R i.e. F.I.R. No.461 dated 25.12.2011 the petitioner had been arrested on 16.6.2013 and thereafter is on regular bail. 9. In my considered view, registration of the aforesaid two F.I.Rs would not stand in the way of the petitioner in so far as consideration of his prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail in the present petition, is concerned. 10. The petitioner having already joined investigation and the vehicles in question having been found to be in possession with their respective registered owners, the prayer is allowed. Order dated 12.11.2013 is made absolute. Petition disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------