High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Raj Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 29 January, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 29 January, 2009
Criminal Misc. No. M-2583 of 2009 (O&M)                               -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH
                        ****
                            Criminal Misc. No. M-2583 of 2009 (O&M)
                                    Date of Decision:29.01.2009

Raj Kumar
                                                       .....Petitioner
            Vs.

State of Punjab
                                                       .....Respondent


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL

Present:-   Mr. Parampreet Singh Paul, Advocate for the petitioner.
                        ****
JUDGMENT

HARBANS LAL, J.

This petition has been moved by Raj Kumar under Section 438

of Cr.P.C seeking his anticipatory bail in case FIR No.4 dated 13.1.2009

registered under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station

Morinda, District Roopnagar.

The facts in brief are that about nine months back Raj Kumar

accused contacted the complainant for supply of two tractors, to which he

agreed. On 1.9.2007 Raj Kumar came to him along-with two other persons,

who were known to the complainant and introduced them as Anwar and

Surinder Singh and asked the complainant to deliver him MF-241 tractor.

The deal was struck at Rs.3,85,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.80,000/- was

paid by Raj Kumar, who agreed to pay the balance amount after obtaining

loan from the bank within two months. After one month, Raj Kumar again

came to the complainant’s agency and asked to give another tractor to

Surinder Singh of Panchkula and made payment of Rs.1 lac in relation to

the earlier tractor. On his assurance, the tractor was given to Surinder
Criminal Misc. No. M-2583 of 2009 (O&M) -2-

Singh. Out of the price of Rs.3,70,000/- of the tractor, Raj Kumar accused

paid a sum of Rs.70,000/-. Both these tractors were sold in Haryana.

Despite repeated demands, the payment of these tractors was not made.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

As a matter of fact, the petitioner is a main culprit as he stood

as guarantor in the sale and purchase of the tractor. He undertook to pay the

balance amount within one month. There are also allegations against the

petitioner that fraudulently he got sold the tractors to some third person and

only he knows to whom these tractors have been sold. This fact can be

ascertained from him only if he is subjected to custodial interrogation,which

is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented. As such, this petition is dismissed.

January 29, 2009                                    ( HARBANS LAL )
renu                                                     JUDGE

Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No