Lakhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 July, 2009

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
               CHANDIGARH

                                     Crl.Misc.No.M-16578 of 2009
                                     Date of Decision:- 20.07.2009

Lakhwinder Singh                            ....Petitioner(s)


                   vs.

State of Punjab                             ....Respondent(s)

                   ***

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

                   ***

Present:-   Mr.Mansur Ali, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.

            Mr.Liaqat Ali, Advocate,
            for the complainant.

                   ***

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has

nothing to do with the case and even if on the face of it, as it is being

alleged that he is Devinder Singh, property dealer, he has only received

Rs.25,000/- and, therefore, without admitting the liability, he is ready and

willing to support the investigation and further deposit Rs.25,000/- with the

investigating Agency. Counsel further submits that even if the petitioner is

treated to be the property dealer, then also he cannot be accused of the

offence since both the parties were merely introduced by him and with open

eyes and on verification of the documents, the parties had entered into an

agreement. He, on this basis, submits that he is entitled to the grant of

anticipatory bail in view of the fact that he has already joined the

investigation.

Crl.Misc.No.M-16578 of 2009 -2-

On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the

complainant has been identified by petitioner as Devinder Singh-property

dealer which he had introduced himself. The money and the transactions

were held in the presence of the petitioner and he was separately handed

over Rs.25,000/- as his commission. Counsel further submits that in

Crl.Misc.No.M-16028 of 2009 wherein the bail application of the other co-

accused has been dismissed by this Court, there also the petitioners had

impersonated and played a fraud with the complainant where a total amount

of Rs.30 lacs was taken from the complainant.

In view of the fact that the petitioner has impersonated himself

as a property dealer with the name of Devinder Singh and having been

identified by the complainant, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner

would be essential to verify the details and the basis for proceeding with

such a fraud against the complainant.

Dismissed.

July 20, 2009                           ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
poonam                                            JUDGE