Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arshdeep Singh @ Arsh vs State Of Punjab on 14 February, 2017
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
-1-
CRM-M-1909-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-1909-2017
Date of Decision: 14.02.2017
Arshdeep Singh @ Arsh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner-Arshdeep Singh @ Arsh has filed this 2nd petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.10 dated 12.01.2016, registered at Police Station Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga, under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that FIR, in the present case, has been registered on the basis of statement of Sarabjeet Singh. As per the allegations, complainant alongwith his senior Dalip Kumar Chhabra was going towards village Pato Singh Wala for collection from the dealer. When they reached near petrol-pump of the said village, one Figo car came from the back side and was stopped in front of their car. From the said Figo car, 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2017 20:36:32 ::: -2- CRM-M-1909-2017 four persons having pistols came out and pointed towards them. When they got afraid, then the aforesaid persons robbed them and took away Rs.50,000/- in cash, 3 mobiles and purse. They also get them (complainant and Deepak Chhabra) out of the car and two persons sat on their vehicle and thereafter, they took away both the cars towards village Pato Heera. It is also mentioned in the FIR that now the complainant came to know the names of said persons. The present petitioner is named in the FIR.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the facts that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and proclamation proceedings are going on against him, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Dismissed.
14.02.2017 (INDERJIT SINGH)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Note: Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2017 20:36:33 :::