Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Kumar Poddar vs State Of Haryana on 11 April, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM-M No. 4072 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-4072 of 2014
Date of decision : 11.04.2014
Sunil Kumar Poddar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sameer Singh, AAG, Haryana
for the State.
****
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Petitioner-Sunil Kumar Poddar son of late Jagdish Rai Poddar, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.393 dated 02.06.2012 (Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through Sumit Kumar the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the 2014.04.11 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No. 4072 of 2014 -2- entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
4. During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Surinder Gupta J.) passed the following order on February 04, 2014:-
"Heard.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the dispute over the sale transaction of 3.25 acres of land is in between the complainant and M/s. Shree Shree Radha Swami Plastic Limited. The petitioner is alleged to have no concern with the title of the property to be sold. He is neither the director of the firm i.e.M/s. Shree Shree Radha Swami Plastic Ltd. nor is a signatory to the agreement to sell. It is stated that the another co-accused, namely Gauri Shankar Poddar has been allowed interim bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.12.2013 (Annexure P-8), while the main accused Prahlad Poddar has been allowed regular bail vide order Annexure P-5.
Notice of motion for 11.04.2014.
Meanwhile the petitioner is directed to surrender before the police and join the investigation. In the event of his arrest being required, the shall be released on furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions specified in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, failing which he shall loose the benefit of bail granted to him."
5. At the very outset, on instructions from SI Rajinder Singh, learned State counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. Sumit Kumar 2014.04.11 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No. 4072 of 2014 -3-
6. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court, by virtue of order dated February 04, 2014, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. At the same time, in case, the petitioner do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this respect.
11.04.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
sumit.k Judge
Sumit Kumar
2014.04.11 17:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document