Anticipatory Bail to Petitioner Alleging Conspiracy and Fraud – Compliance with Loan Procedure: P&H HC

Share:
bail sex property bail arrest lambardar IPS provisions CyberspaceMurder Evidence Auction Discipline Cross-Examination Training evidence account kidnapping Tenant wasting 68 accident land cheque land withdrawal father transfer post fir Signature railways copyright probation cheque circumstances motor murder plaint notice bail proceedings admissible justice pay evidence ndps rice Teachers bail juvenile conviction property motor bail corporation suicide probation statement electricity bail Bail drugs time person JATINDER WALIA ASJ juvenilefalse bail passport authorities sale notice suit convict fir evidence murder surety suicide bailable daughters trial suit adult license answer hall business reservation

In a recent development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Paramjit Kohli, who was accused of various offenses under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized the importance of complying with loan procedures and the petitioner’s cooperation with the ongoing investigation.

The petitioner’s plea for anticipatory bail was rooted in the allegations that he was a victim of a larger conspiracy. It was alleged that he had obtained loans against gold jewelry from Bank of India, Sector 16 Branch, Panchkula, and that the bank officials were involved in fraudulent activities. Several similar cases involving other individuals had been registered, leading the petitioner’s counsel to argue that the allegations against the bank officials warranted careful consideration.

Justice Jhingan, in his observations, made it clear that the court’s remarks were not indicative of the case’s merits. He stressed that the petitioner had adhered to the bank’s procedures for availing the loan, and that the jewelry had been verified in the presence of bank officials by the empaneled jeweler. Furthermore, the petitioner had willingly joined the ongoing investigation, making his cooperation evident.

The court concluded by making the interim anticipatory bail granted earlier absolute, subject to the petitioner’s continued compliance with Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his active involvement in the ongoing investigation. The judgment underscored the significance of adhering to procedural norms while highlighting that the observations did not express an opinion on the case’s merits.

The judgment referred to previous cases, including an order dated 27th April 2022 in ‘Vipin Bakshi v. State of Haryana’ and an order dated 10th August 2022 in ‘Sanjana Goyal v. State of Haryana’, both of which were passed by coordinate benches of the court. This further solidified the court’s approach to similar cases.

 Date of Decision: 16th August, 2023

Paramjit Kohli vs State of Haryana  

Download Judgment

Share: