Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajesh @ Vinod Chawla vs State Of Haryana on 15 October, 2010

Author: Sabina

Bench: Sabina

      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                       Criminal Misc. No.M- 30343 of 2010 (O&M)
                       Date of decision: 15.10.2010

Rajesh @ Vinod Chawla

                                                    ......Petitioner

                       Versus



State of Haryana

                                                  .......Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA


Present:   Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate,
           for the petitioner.

                ****


SABINA, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 91 dated 10.2.2010 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Fatehabad.

The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-1) read as under:-

"It is submitted that the applicant is the resident of Jagjeevanpura Mohalla, Fatehabad and works as a transporter. The applicant had a Bolero Jeep vide No.HR 22F 1175 Model 2009 and there were documents i.e. RC, Insurance Policy. Two cheque books, pass books of PNB Criminal Misc. No.M- 30343 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Kajawala Branch, Delhi, AXIS Bank, Fatehabad and ITR, Income Tax reports and other ledger books in the vehicle. The vehicle was stolen from the front of the house at about 12 night on dated 9.2.2010. The applicant along with his father reached at the house at quarter twelve after attending a marriage function and the vehicle was parked in front of the house. The value of the vehicle and its goods is about ` 6,00,000/-. Therefore, it is requested while submitting the case of theft and take legal action."

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

A perusal of the order dated 24.9.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the bail application filed by the petitioner, reveals that twelve more cases are pending against the petitioner and he has also been declared a proclaimed offender. In these circumstances, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE October 15, 2010 anita