Dismissed

Ajay v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Nov 2010CRM-M/33548/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A pre-arrest bail petition was dismissed because the petitioner faced serious charges of violating a mining ban and assaulting police. The court held that the allegations warranted investigation and no grounds for bail were made out despite the petitioner's claim of having purchased the sand legally.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed and pre-arrest bail to the petitioner is refused.

Ajay Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CRM No.M-33548 of 2010

¶2

::1::

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-33548 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.11.2010

Ajay

.. Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

.. Respondent

Present:- Mr.Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

S.S. SARON, J.

¶13

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 15.09.2010 for the offences under Sections 379 and 188 IPC, at Police Station Sadar Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

¶15

The FIR, in the case, has been registered on the complaint of Hari Singh, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, village Jadupur. It is alleged that Des Raj, Ex-sarpanch (non-petitioner) has been violating the order of the High Court and committing theft of sand from the Jadupur river. Even on the date of giving the information i.e. 15.09.2010, Des Raj along with his neighbour Ajay (petitioner) on his red colour tractor No.DI-575 along with trolley; besides, two others on tractors were committing theft of sand from Jadupur river. If a raid was carried out all the three persons could be apprehended red-handed. It is alleged that there was a ban on mining in Haryana. The complainant Hari Singh as also Mukhtiar Singh, Raj Kumar and Dalip had come to the Incharge Police Post and submitted for legal action be taken.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

¶17

::2::

¶18

CRM No.M-33548 of 2010

¶19

petitioner has not committed any theft and the present FIR has been lodged by the present Sarpanch Hari Singh against the Ex-Sarpanch on account of political rivalry. It is further submitted that in fact, the petitioner purchased the sand from village Buwana. A reference has been made to the receipt dated 15.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) regarding purchase of the sand. The said receipt has been issued by the concerned contractor. It is also submitted that in any case the recovery of the sand and the tractortrolley has been effected and, therefore, the custody of the petitioner is not required, besides, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation.

¶20

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, declined bail to the petitioner in terms of order dated 13.11.2010. It was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that Ajay (petitioner) after being caught red-handed, was being taken to the Police Station and then some of his companions assaulted the Police Party on the way in village Jadupur. They got the tractor-trolley as well as the petitioner freed from the Police Party. In this regard, a separate FIR has been registered. The learned Public Prosecutor had further submitted that insofar as receipt (Annexure P-1) of purchasing the sand was concerned, it could be procured easily by anyone by paying a meagre amount.

¶21

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul had confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner, who conceded that a separate FIR had been registered against the petitioner as also his companions for having forcibly taken the tractor-trolley as well as for getting the petitioner freed from the Police Party. Accordingly, it was held that in view of the seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed, the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bial.

¶22

::3::

¶23

CRM No.M-33548 of 2010

¶24

The reasons recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, are that the petitioner was alleged to be taking the sand from Jodapur river for which there was a complete ban. Besides, after he was apprehended and was being taken to the Police Station, his companions got him and the tractor-trolley freed from the Police Party. In that regard a separate FIR also stands registered against the petitioner. The receipt (Annexure P-1) showing that the petitioner had purchased the sand from village Buwana, is in the nature of defence evidence, which is to be considered by the Investigating Officer or the Court as the case may be. The same is not liable to be gone into at this stage. The fact that it is a case of political rivalry as the present Sarpanch has reported the matter against the Ex-sarpanch, is not to be gone into at this stage and it is for the investigating authorities to go into the same. The allegations against the petitioner are not only of stealing the sand from Jadupur river in violation of the order passed by this Court but also that after he was apprehended and was being taken to the Police Station, he was freed by his companions, for which a separate FIR stands registered.

¶25

In the facts and circumstances, no ground for pre-arrest bail is made out.

¶26

The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶27

(S.S. SARON) JUDGE

¶28

November 16, 2010 sukhpreet

Ajay v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarjit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Smt.Murti Devi and Ors. Vs Haryana State and Ors.

Amarjit etc. Vs the Haryana State etc.

Roop Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Krishan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Surinder Arjun Vs State of Punjab