0

Punjab High Court- Grants regular bail accused under sections 420, 465, 468, 471&120-B

Blog ,

TITLE: Ram Baksh v State of Punjab

Decided On-:02.6.2023

CRM-M No. 27293 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Raj Mohan Singh

INTRODUCTION- The petitioner requests regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is registered under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, and 120-B.

FACTS OF THE CASE- According to allegations in the FIR, the patwari and complainant Jasminder Singh claimed that the petitioner visited him in the patwarkhana and gave him photocopies of five sale deeds so that he could enter changes. On the sale deeds, Rajinderpal Kaur Chhenna, an MLA, had both his signature and his stamp. To determine whether the signatures were authentic or not, the complainant went to the MLA’s office. The MLA informed him that neither she nor anyone else ever signed or stamped any photocopies of the sale deed any copy of the sales contract.Upon further investigation, the complainant learned that Maninder Kaur, a staff member in the MLA’s office, had assisted in the petitioner’s use of the MLA’s stamp and signature.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney claims that the FIR was filed against the rules established in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 (8) SCC 273 and that the FIR was improperly filed.In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2021) 10 SCC 773, it was argued that Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code did not require the accused to receive a notice, which is required when an offence carries a sentence of seven years or less.According to the learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Daljeet Singh, no notice was given to the petitioner under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. 6. This is in response to a direct question regarding the petitioner receiving a notice in accordance with the mandate of the cases of Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar (supra). The investigating agency is required to follow the directive of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Cr.P.C. in light of the Satender Kumar case (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court’s instructions in Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra) must be strictly followed.Since the petitioner has not received a notice, I believe it is apposite to grant regular bail to the petitioner based on the authority of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar(supra).

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

 

0

LOC stands against the principles of natural justice and constitutional rights of the petitioner- removed by Haryana High court

blog , ,

TITLE: Sumedha Goel  v State of Haryana

Decided On-: May 1, 2023

CWP-19776-2020 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Ms. Ritu Bahri &Manisha Batra

INTRODUCTION–   The petitioner has filed this petition in order to obtain a writ of certiorari to vacate a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against her by the Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, at the request of the Director of Enforcement.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

The petitioner’s situation is that she is an Indian non-resident who has been living in Singapore since 2016 and working for a software company there. Her residence is in Ludhiana. She received a number of properties from her in-laws as part of a family settlement after her husband passed away in 2014, according to the settlement agreement. She will purchase an apartment in Ludhiana in June or July 2020 using her own funds. In his capacity as a businessman, Kailash Aggarwal dealt with the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL). NESL, its Directors, and its Employees are the subjects of a FIR with the number 213 on it. The petitioner’s father and the companies he owns have also been named as defendants in the aforementioned case, which was filed in accordance with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), and her father is currently being tried in the designated court in Greater Mumbai. In March of 2020, she travelled to see her parents. She had been residing with her parents ever since, though, because of the Covid outbreak and ensuing lockdown. On 11/12.08.2020, respondent No. 2’s officials conducted a raid at her father’s home, and she later learned that by issuing some orders, respondent No. 2 had frozen/suspended the bank accounts and D-mat accounts that had previously existed in her name as well as the names of her daughters and other people.

She had travelled abroad once more, and when she returned on November 10, 2020, and arrived at Amristar Airport, immigration officers detained her and informed her that a LOC had been issued against her. She claimed that respondent No. 2 had issued some notices during her absence from the country from 20.08.2020 to 10.11.2020, but she was unable to receive them. In the interim, the respondents had made some complaints under the PMLA of 2002, alleging that her parents had sold attached properties and transferred the sale price into their bank accounts. The movable and immovable property owned by the petitioner and her daughters was temporarily attached to respondent No. 2 on September 24, 2020.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney argued that she was not a defendant in any criminal case. She was unconcerned with her father’s businesses or his business dealings. She was an NRI who had a job that required frequent travel there and back. Her right to travel abroad could not be taken away. She was unable to be stopped from leaving the country.

On the other hand, experienced representation for the respondents has argued that the petitioner’s father was involved in criminal cases due to allegations of committing offences under the terms of the PMLA. He had engaged in money laundering and, by selling attached properties, had transferred sale proceeds totaling Rs. 3.20 Crores in favour of the petitioner and her daughters, thereby also involving the petitioner.

Both the counsel relied they argumnets on previous ruling and submitted their prayers

“In these circumstances, the respondents, in our opinion, cannot prevent the petitioner from leaving the country by issuing a look out circular, and the action taken by the respondents is not only a violation of office memorandums issued by respondent No. 2 itself, but also a violation of natural justice principles and a violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights.”

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by–  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

0

The Punjab and Haryana High Court awards compensation based on an overall view of the rules and regulations governing a vehicle driven on the road.

blog ,

The Punjab and Haryana High Court awards compensation based on an overall view of the rules and regulations governing a vehicle driven on the road.

TITLE – Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited v.

Sarabjit Kaur and Others 

Decided On- March 7, 2022

(2022) 4 RCR (Civil) 543

CORAM:  RAJBHR SHERAWAT

INTRODUCTION – The Punjab and Haryana High Court, granted by Justice Rajbhir Sherawat, has provided distinctive compensation to the claimants and insurance company by the following rules and regulations.

  FACTS OF THE CASE

  In an Innova car with the license plate DL-10-CE-2458, Jitender Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Narender Pal Singh, Raminder Singh, Kuldeep Singh, and Harbhajan Singh were traveling from Delhi to Amritsar. While Amarjeet Singh was driving the car, Kuldeep Singh and Harbhajan Singh were seated in the back seat. The truck/tanker bearing registration number MP-09-HG-9347, which was traveling in front of the Innova car as they approached the area between Pipli and Shahbad on the national highway, abruptly applied brakes. The accident happened as a result. The Innova vehicle’s occupants suffered critical injuries as a result of the collision. Amarjeet Singh passed away at the LNJP Hospital in Kurukshetra, but Jitender Singh, Raminder Singh, and Narinder Pal Singh died as a result of their wounds on the scene. Harbhajan Singh lived but was hurt. At Police Station Sadar, Thanesar, a criminal case with FIR No. 46 dated 6.2.2014 was also filed due to the accident. A complaint had been made in the aforementioned case against respondent No. 1, the alleged negligent tanker driver. The legal representatives of the deceased filed four claim petitions in the aforementioned set of circumstances, and the injured party himself filed a fifth for injuries he sustained in the accident.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

 The court has heard the arguments of both parties and in view of all the respective regulations. the assertions made by the claimants, which have been duly supported by their evidence, have gone totally un-rebutted on the part of the respondents. Even the respondent Insurance company has not led any evidence of any kind to rebut the assertions of the claimants that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the offending tanker. Once; being a respondent, they had taken a plea of negligence of the driver of the Innova car, then it was incumbent upon them to substantiate such assertion by leading positive evidence. However, the respondents-Insurance company have failed in proving those assertions made in their written statements the Counsel for the respondent has relied upon Regulation No. 23 of the Regulations of 1989,  this was not a  substantive ground for the claimant to not receive compensation as well as the appellant was not absolved to pay compensation to the insurance company. Therefore, the Hon’ble court has held The respondent Insurance company is held liable for 70% of the liability, leaving the appellant Insurance company with 30% of the liability to reimburse the claimants.        

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

 

1 2