TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies anticipatory bail, grants interim bail with conditions, but rejects extension due to non-compliance.</h1> <h3>Som Parkash, Dharmender Kumar Versus State of Haryana</h3> The High Court dismissed both anticipatory bail applications in a case involving serious allegations of cheating, conspiracy, and dishonoured cheques ... Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Dishonor of Cheque - false and concocted agreement for sale - fraudulent sale of land - Sale deed not executed nor earnest money returned - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the petitioner - Som Parkash was granted the interim bail but has failed to join the investigation, there are 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, there are no ground to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner - Dharmender, as well. Petition dismissed. Issues involved:Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in FIR involving offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC; Failure to join investigation; Allegations of conspiracy to cheat complainant; Dishonoured cheques; Maintainability of FIR; Pressure to return amount; Possession of property taken forcibly.Analysis:1. Anticipatory Bail Application:The petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in FIR involving serious offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The court considered the allegations against the petitioners, namely Som Parkash and his son Dharmender Kumar, related to a property deal where the complainant alleged non-execution of sale deed, dishonoured cheques, and conspiracy to cheat. The court granted interim bail to Som Parkash with conditions, including joining the investigation within 10 days. However, as Som Parkash failed to comply, the court found no grounds to extend the interim bail.2. Allegations of Conspiracy and Cheating:The complainant alleged a conspiracy to cheat involving both accused, claiming that they misrepresented ownership of a property in Mohali, leading to the complainant making a payment of Rs. 18.63 lacs. Subsequently, the accused failed to execute the sale deed or return the money. The court noted the arguments by the petitioners' counsels that the FIR was filed to pressure them to return the amount and that the complainant could have pursued civil remedies. However, the counsel for the complainant argued that the accused had the intention to cheat from the beginning, misusing the complainant's money and forcibly taking possession of the property.3. Dishonoured Cheques and Maintainability of FIR:The counsel for the petitioner Dharmender argued that the FIR was not maintainable as it was based on dishonoured cheques, for which a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was already filed. The court considered this argument but found that the FIR contained serious allegations of cheating and conspiracy, indicating a calculated move to deceive the complainant. Therefore, the court dismissed the argument regarding the maintainability of the FIR.4. Failure to Join Investigation and Dismissal of Anticipatory Bail:The court highlighted that Som Parkash's failure to join the investigation, despite being granted interim bail, led to the dismissal of his anticipatory bail application. Additionally, although Dharmender was not bound by his father's undertaking, the court found the allegations directly against Dharmender, involving accepting money, providing possession of the property, and issuing dishonoured cheques. Consequently, the court rejected Dharmender's anticipatory bail application as well, based on the seriousness of the allegations against him.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed both anticipatory bail applications, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations of cheating, conspiracy, and dishonoured cheques in the FIR, and the failure of the petitioners to comply with the conditions set by the court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
