Charanjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1420
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Misc. No. 12253-M of 2009
Charanjit Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 12/05/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Patter, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
(A) Criminal Law--Bail--Anticipatory bail--Impersonation--Petitioners purchased land for sale consideration of 62,20,000/- later it was found that owner of Land lady was impersonated and sale deed executed in favour of petitioners was fraudulent document--Entire sale consideration was paid in cash--Sufficient evidence that petitioners taking into consideration that land is lying vacant had committed fraud by bringing to a lady and projecting her as owner--Custodial interrogation of petitioner required for advancement of investigation--Hence prayer for pre-arrest bail declined--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 419, 420 and 205. (Para 5)
(B) Criminal Law--Bail--Grant--Impersonation--Purchase of land--Later it was found that land lady was impersonated and sale deed executed was fraudulent document--Petitioner, who identified lady who had impersonated landlady is in custody since 15.1.2009--It is a case of magisterial trial--Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. submitted--18 witnesses cited by prosecution--Trial will take long time to conclude--Further detention of co-petitioner not warranted especially when challan is filed against petitioner only--Other co-accused are to be arrested and supplementary challan is to be filed--Petitioner ordered to be released on bail to satisfaction of C.J.M.--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 419, 420 and 205. (Para 6)
------------------
Randip Singh v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1422
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Criminal Revision No.1854 of 2002 (O&M)
Randip Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 05/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Parduman Yadav, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Criminal Law--Rash and Negligent driving--Acquittal--Prosecution case doubtful as presence of witnesses at the spot was suspicious--Since witnesses were strangers to petitioner, it is a hit and run case, none of witnesses has stated that they had identified petitioner at spot, therefore, in the absence of test identification parade in such case, identification of petitioner for the first time in Court is insignificant--Prime element of rashness or negligence which the sine quo for holding culpability of accused has not been proved at all most material witness has been withheld--Conviction and sentence set aside--Accused acquitted--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A. (Para 9)
--------------------------
Rishal & Anr. v. Biro & Ors.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1423
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A.No.3659 of 2008
Rishal & Anr.
v.
Biro & Ors.
{Decided on 05/05/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate.
Land and Property Law--Mortgage--Usufructuary Mortgage--Once a mortgage always a mortgage--No time limit prescribed for redeeming an usufructuary mortgage--Mortgage cannot become owner of land as mortgagor failed to redeem it for more than 100 years--Sale deed would have no bearing on status or mortgagor and mortgagee--|Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
------------------