Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Singh @ Rana vs State Of Punjab on 5 January, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-37869 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: January 5, 2012.
Ravinder Singh @ Rana
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Punjab.
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S.Jattana, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
*****
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.26 dated 18.07.2011 under Sections 392 IPC, Police Station Hazipur, District Hoshiarpur.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.
Briefly stated, allegations against the petitioner are that Tilak Raj, who was working as J.E. at Power House No.3, Mukerian. On 15.7.2011 after finishing his duty, was going to his house on his scooter. At about CRM No.M-37869 of 2011(O&M) 2 8.30 p.m. when he reached near Sant Nirankari Bhawan, Hazipur, four young boys came on two motorcycles. They waylaid him and snatched his mobile phone and cash amount of Rs.900/-. During investigation, Amrik Singh and Manpreet Singh were arrested. They confessed during interrogation that present petitioner along with Inderjeet Singh was also involved with them in this occurrence.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that confession by co-accused is not admissible against him.
However, at this stage, the statement of co-accused is sufficient to interrogate the petitioner-accused. The case is at initial stage of investigation.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the State that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is necessary to arrive at the truth.
Allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused.
Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by petitioner Ravinder Singh @ Rana is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) January 5, 2012. JUDGE Sachin M.