The High Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The judge held that the case required custodial interrogation for a thorough investigation of alleged purchase irregularities and was not suitable for extraordinary relief.
The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.M.No.M-12053 of 2010 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-12053 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 20, 2010
Raj Kumar
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.M.Anand, Add. A.G., Haryana.
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.22429 of 2010
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.No.22428 of 2010
Requests for placing on record Annexures P8 and P9. Application is allowed. Annexures P8 and P9 are taken on
record.
Application stands disposed of accordingly. Crl.M.No.M-12053 of 2010
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.161, dated 1.4.2010, under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.
Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused are that the case was registered against the petitioner on the directions of Lok Ayukata, vide order dated 1.4.2010, when certain irregularities in purchases were brought to his notice. Petitioner-accused was working as Principal, ITI, Gurgaon, at the time of alleged occurrence. He being Principal was responsible for the
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-12053 of 2010 (O&M)
purchases being made in the ITI. As per allegations, he purchased one TATA 407 and one Jeep for ITI Gurgaon at inflated rates. In fact he did not purchase the new TATA 407 and Jeep, rather he purchased spare-parts and assembled the same. He had purchased spare-parts worth Rs.16.30 lacs and after assembling the same, one TATA 407 and one Jeep were made operational, whereas the cost of new vehicles is about Rs.10 lacs only. Even the said vehicles cannot be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act. As per allegations even record regarding the said purchases is missing. Even perusal of questionnaire, Annexure P9 shows that petitioner has admitted his fault and, however, he tried to shift his responsibility/liability to the storekeeper of the Institute.
Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioneraccused. Rather his custodial interrogation is necessary for thorough investigation of the case.
Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Raj Kumar for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
20.7.2010
meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving alleged irregularities in vehicle purchases.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary given the allegations of inflated rates and liability shifting.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Kumar
State of Haryana
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
