Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Fraud Case, Delay in FIR and Lack of Involvement in Defrauded Amount

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Single Bench, has granted bail to Manpreet Singh in a fraud case involving allegations of cheating and fraud. The judgment, delivered by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, highlighted the delay in registering the First Information Report (FIR) and the petitioner’s lack of involvement in the defrauded amount.

The case pertained to an FIR registered on 13-07-2022 under Sections 419, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at the Cyber Crime Police Station in Chandigarh. The complainant alleged that he had paid a substantial sum to the accused for the purchase of Platinum Premium mobile numbers of a reputed telecom company, which were never activated. The accused, who had received the payment, ceased all communication with the complainant, leading to the filing of the FIR.

During the investigation, it was discovered that the mobile numbers used in the fraudulent activity were registered in the name of a co-accused. The court noted that the petitioner, Manpreet Singh, was not the beneficiary of the defrauded amount and that no recovery had been made from him. Additionally, none of the 15 prosecution witnesses had been examined thus far, and the trial was not expected to conclude in the near future.

Considering these factors, the court granted bail to Manpreet Singh, emphasizing that bail should only be denied in exceptional circumstances in cases triable by a magistrate, unless there are serious allegations of absconding or evidence tampering. The court further directed the petitioner to appear before the concerned police station regularly and submit written confirmation of non-involvement in any other criminal activities.

 

Decided on : 30-05-2023

 

MANPREET SINGH VS STATE OF U.T., CHANDIGARH

Latest Legal News