Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2021) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15997
Decided on: 22.02.2021
Present:
Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail by Trial Court – Challenge to -- Allegations primarily are against co-accused who is alleged to have taken money on the pretext of sending the complainant abroad -- Money is stated to have been paid in cash -- Matter was settled and cheques issued by co-accused were dishonoured -- No specific allegation against the private respondents have been roped in because they are related to co-accused -- No infirmity in the order granting anticipatory bail to them.
(Para 4)
B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail on same day – Legality of -- No merit in the contention that bail was granted on the same day as there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. which stipulates that the bail cannot be granted on the same day.
(Para 4)
***
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.02.2021 whereby respondents No.2 and 3 have been granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations against respondents No.2 & 3 are serious as they have cheated the complainant and therefore, they were not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. He also contends that the bail was granted that very same day.
3. Heard through video conferencing.
4. It is apparent that the allegations have been levelled primarily against co-accused Charanjit Singh who is alleged to have taken money on the pretext of sending the complainant abroad. The money is stated to have been paid in cash. With the intervention of the Panchayat, the matter appeared to have been settled and cheques are stated to have been issued by co-accused Charanjit Singh which were dishonoured. There is no specific allegation against the private respondents and they have been roped in because they are related to co-accused. Respondent No.3 is the maternal uncle of co-accused Charanjit Singh while respondent No.2 is the maternal grandmother of co-accused. As there are no specific allegations against respondents No.2 and 3 and they have been primarily roped in because they are relatives of the co-accused, I do not find any infirmity in the order granting anticipatory bail to them. There is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that bail was granted on the same day as there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which stipulates that the bail cannot be granted on the same day.
5. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
********