Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dayanand vs State Of Haryana --Respondent on 5 May, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-7025 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.05.2014.
Dayanand --Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana --Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:- Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, A.A.G., Haryana.
Ms. Garima Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
***
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.441 dated 26.11.2013 under sections 406, 420, 506, 379, 427, 120-B I.P.C, registered at Police Station, Tosham, District Bhiwani.
While issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed by this Court on 3.3.2014:-
"This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 441 dated 26.11.2013 under Sections 406, 420, 506, 379, 427, 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani.
Counsel would contend that even as per contents of the FIR, no offence is made out against the present petitioner and even his name does not figure. He has further argued that no specific allegations as regards forgery has been attributed and that he has been involved subsequently on the Lucky basis of statement of co-accused, namely, Kuldeep Singh.2014.05.06 13:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM No. M-7025 of 2014 (O&M) -2-
Notice of motion for 05.05.2014.
In the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and he shall remain bound by the conditions envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C."
Learned State counsel upon instructions from ASI Ram Parkash would apprise the Court that the petitioner has since joined investigation.
Even otherwise, the name of the present petitioner does not even figure in the F.I.R and he has been sought to be implicated on the statement of co-accused namely Kuldeep Singh. The present petitioner claims to be the subsequent purchaser of the vehicle in question and even such vehicle was recovered and subsequently released on superdari.
In the light of such factual position, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not be warranted.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 3.3.2014, passed by this Court, is made absolute.
Petition disposed of.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE May 05, 2014.
lucky