Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roop Lal vs State Of Haryana And Another on 30 October, 2012
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CRM M-10299 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
CRM M-10299 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: October 30, 2012
Roop Lal
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sidharth Sarup, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Hemender Goswami, Advocate,
for the intervener.
Mr. R.S. Madan, Advocate,
for the complainant.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 7 dated 24.01.2012, under Sections 406, 408, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Saha, Tehsil and District Ambala. CRM M-10299 of 2012 2
This Court vide order dated 11.04.2012 has granted interim anticipatory bail.
The necessary facts relevant for disposal of the bail petition are to the effect that an FIR was registered at the instance of one Jeet Singh son of Govind Ram on the allegations that on 16.01.2012, the complainant had sent Khair Hard Wood of 4.8885 M3 amounting to Rs.45,000/- to M/s Chandan Wood Product, village Asawarpur, Bhallgarh, District Sonepat in a truck bearing registration No. HP24A-7695 and he had also sent Satish Kumar, Munshi with the aforesaid truck. It is alleged in the FIR that on 17.01.2012 at about 2.30 a.m. when the truck reached near Village Saha, some unknown persons brought a Tavera vehicle in front of the truck, out of which three persons came out, two persons were in civil dress and having wrapped cloth sheet (Chadar) around them. They asked for the documents of the vehicle and the goods. Thereafter, Munshi showed all the documents. After taking the documents from the Munshi by using physical force, they asked Munshi to come in their vehicle to Police Station with one person. Out of two, one person sat in the truck and asked the truck driver to follow them. Munishi was left at the main road Panchkula and he was told to come to the police station, Panchkula at 10.00 a.m. for release of the vehicle including goods. Munshi made phone call to the contractor and sub-contractor regarding this. The complainant is stated to be the sub- contractor. Thereafter complainant approached Police Post of Sector 2 and Police Stations of Sectors 5, 10 and Chandi Mandir, but his truck was not found there and the complainant was told that no such truck was taken into CRM M-10299 of 2012 3 custody by the police.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is a delay in reporting the matter, name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR. The petitioner has compromised the matter with the complainant Jeet Singh.
I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Virtually there is no delay in registration of the FIR. Application was moved to the authorities at Bilaspur in Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, it was found that this incident had happened within the jurisdiction of the State of Haryana where the FIR was registered. It is common that in the cases of intercepting the truck and taking away the possession of the truck and the articles, no one can identify the accused. In such like cases, the names appear only during investigation. As such, merely non-mentioning of the name of the petitioner in the FIR does not mean that the petitioner was not an accused or is not required for interrogation. Perusal of the police file reveals that driver Khem Raj in connivance with Jeet Singh and the petitioner has committed the offence. Thereafter, the petitioner effected compromise with sub contractor Jeet Singh - complainant. It clearly indicates that the petitioner has already tampered with the prosecution evidence and has obtained the affidavit under influence. Merely on this ground that the petitioner has CRM M-10299 of 2012 4 compromised the matter with the complainant, petitioner cannot be granted bail. It is a common knowledge that many a times complainant even turns out to be accused. Here is a case where the driver has turned out to be an accused and there is every possibility that the complainant may also be a party to the said crime. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to any concession.
During investigation, it has been revealed that a truck bearing registration No. HP24A7695 being driven by Khem Raj son of Sh. Nand Lal in which Khair Hard Wood of 4.8885 M3, worth Rs.45,000/- was sent from Bilaspur (HP) to M/s Chandan Wood Product, Village Asawarpur, Bhallgarh, District Sonepat. The truck along with wood was stolen allegedly by some of the accused. During the course of investigation, it has transpired that Rajinder Singh Chandel is the authorised Wood contractor and he had further appointed Jeet Singh as sub contractor. During investigation and from the statements of Range Officer, Block Officer and Forest Guard, it transpired that Jeet Singh is the attorney of Rajinder Singh Chandel Contractor and was granted permit for cutting the khair wood of land owners and permission was granted in this regard. During investigation of Hem Raj, driver, it transpired that the truck was taken away by Roop Lal along with other persons. The entries and details of the aforesaid truck at various toll taxes and nakas have been collected. During further investigation, it transpired that Rakesh Sharma son of Ram Parkash Sharma, Proprietor of M/s Sharma & Company was the authorized supplier of Khair Hard Woods to M/s Chandan Wood Product Bhallgarh, CRM M-10299 of 2012 5 District Sonepat and he had already paid the entire cost of wood to Jeet Singh, complainant, as per the agreement. Driver as well as the petitioner in connivance with each other had misappropriated the wood worth Rs.45,000/-. Since, this is a case where the truck had been taken by the petitioner in connivance with the driver and the others and they have taken away the wood worth Rs.45,000/-, the identity of the accused is yet to be established. Since petitioner was allegedly accompanying those persons when the truck was stopped in the midway and he was taken out of the truck by making a lame excuse of looking into the documents and bringing the said truck to the police station, the petitioner is alleged to have committed a serious offence. In such case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner to find out where the said wood has been sent or sold and who were the other persons accompanying him when they intercepted the truck and taken over the truck as well as the wood is necessary more so because allegations are serious in nature.
Keeping in view this fact, custodial interrogation is necessary. As such, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, at this stage.
Dismissed.
October 30, 2012 [Paramjeet Singh] vkd Judge