Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surya Prakash Alias Monu And Anr vs State Of Haryana on 29 November, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162731
1
CRM-M-40939-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40939-2024
Reserved on: 13.11.2024
Pronounced on: 29.11.2024
Surya Prakash alias Monu and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Sandeep Raj Duggal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 43 28.02.2024 Rampura, 120-B, 268, 285, 286, 379, 427 & 440 District Rewari r/w 34 IPC, Sections 7 & 6 of Essential Commodities Act 1955, 3&4 of Explosive Substances Act 1908, 15 of Petroleum & Pipe Lines (ACQN of RTS of User in I.D) Act 1962, 3&4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984 and Sections 3 & 4 of Motor Spirit & High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply & Distribution & Prevention ) Order 1998
1. The petitioner(s) apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above have come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.
2. As per paragraph 11 of the reply dated 10.11.2024, the accused/petitioner-Surya Prakash has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station 1 753 2022 379/511 IPC, 15(2), 15(4) of PMPL Dibiyapur, Act District Oriya 2 50 2023 379, 511, 201, 34 IPC and 15/16 of Kasola, Petroleum Act, Sections 1, 3, 4 of District Rewari Explosive Act and 3 & 4 of PDPP Act 1 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 07-12-2024 11:03:00 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162731 2 CRM-M-40939-2024
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:
"That the facts giving rise to the registration of the FIR aforementioned are that the law was set in motion on the basis of the complaint moved by Sachet Yadav, Assistant Manager (Mainline), Indian Oil Corporation, Rewari. He has alleged that on 28.02.2024 in the arca of village Bharawas, crude oil was found scattered from the Mundra-Panipat Section CH-1020.80. On checking of the site, it transpired that a valve was found welded with the main pipe and as such, it is apparent that someone had committed the theft of oil. On the basis of these allegations, the FIR aforementioned was registered and the investigation was taken up in the matter."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.
5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:
"6. That during the analysis of the said data, mobile number 8394989655 were found to be suspected. It was analyzed and was found to be belonging to Avedesh son of Gauri Shanker. On the basis of the said analysis, said Avedesh was joined in investigation of the case on 23.03.2024 and he was arrested upon receipt of appropriate incriminating against him. He was interrogated while being in custody and upon interrogation, he suffered his disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the commission of the present crime along with the co- accused.
7. That in pursuance of the disclosure, said Avedesh got recovered the spade and other dealing equipments alongwith motor cycle bearing registration No. PB-03-AB/7500, which was taken into possession.
8. That on 26.03.2024, co-accused Bharat was arrested upon receipt of appropriate incriminating evidence against him. He was interrogated while being custody and upon interrogation, he conceded his involvement in the present crime alongwith the petitioner and the other co-accused.
9. That consequent upon the completion of the investigation qua the arrested co-accused Avedesh and Bharat, final report contemplated by the provisions of section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was put in court of competent 2 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 07-12-2024 11:03:00 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:162731 3 CRM-M-40939-2024 jurisdiction on 18.06.2024.
10. That the petitioner Surya Parkash is the prime accused in the case. His complicity has also been found in other cases, pertaining to the facts akin to the one complained of in the present FIR. Further, the complicity of the petitioner Surya Parkash is writ large by the fact that the mobile phone location of the petitioners has been found at the place of occurrence."
7. The offence is extremely grave, and the damage has far-reaching political, economic, and safety consequences.
8. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of crime would also not justify bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.
9. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
10. Petition dismissed. Interim orders are recalled with immediate effect. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 29.11.2024 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 3 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 07-12-2024 11:03:00 :::