9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oney from the complainant and thereafter, handed over the possession of the property but later on in a calculated move to cheat the complainant not only the possession was forcibly taken back but the cheques were given knowingly that the same will be dishonoured, there are no ground to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner - Dharmender, as well. Petition dismissed. - CRM-M No.43349 & 43587 of 2020 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 4-1-2021 - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Mr. Ashok Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG, Haryana Mr. P.K.S. Chugh, Advocate for the complainant ORDER ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) Prayer in these petitions is for grant of antic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 138 of N.I. Act filed by the complainant Sonu Mittal and he will surrender before the police today itself. Notice of motion for 04.01.2021. In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days to join investigation and he shall be released on interim bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds subject to the following conditions:- 1. He shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. He 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; and 3. He shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t he has given the power of attorney to his son Dharmender and therefore, he is not in a condition to execute the sale deed and asked for some more time. The accused kept on delaying the matter till April, 2020 but having failed to do so, the accused further took the forcible possession of the property, which was given to the complainant at the time of execution of the sale deed. The arguments on behalf of counsel for the petitioner - Som Parkash are already noticed in the aforesaid order dated 22.12.2020. The counsel for the petitioner - Dharmender has argued that in fact the agreement for sale is a false and concocted document and the complainant has already filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the counsel for the parties, considering the fact that the petitioner - Som Parkash was granted the interim bail but has failed to join the investigation, I find no ground to extend the concession of interim bail to the petitioner - Som Parkash. Though the undertaking given by the petitioner - Som Parkash is not binding on his son Dharmender, however, considering the allegations in the FIR, which are directly against Dharmender who on behalf of his father has accepted the money from the complainant and thereafter, handed over the possession of the property but later on in a calculated move to cheat the complainant not only the possession was forcibly taken back but the cheques were given knowingly that the same will be dishonoured, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
