Dismissed

Bhupender Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Nov 2010CRM-M/34333/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court dismissed the plea. The court held that the allegations of theft and misappropriation were serious, necessitating custodial interrogation, and refused bail as a matter of course.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed; no bail granted.

Bhupender Singh Vs State of Haryana — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CRM No.M-34333 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-34333 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision:23.11.2010

¶6

Bhupender Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶8

Present: Mr.Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

¶10

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

¶11

By invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., petitionerBhupender Singh son of Parmal Singh, has instituted the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.188 dated 14.10.2010, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 381, 407 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Kasola, District Rewari.

¶12

Succinctly, the prosecution claimed that the petitioner was in-charge of the store of the complainant-Company i.e. Uni Products India Limited, Ladhuwas. It purchased and loaded 1600 Tons of granules in a truck bearing registration No.HR-47-A-4059, for bringing it to its store. The petitioner received the goods and kept it in the store. Subsequently, in the wake of checking/preliminary enquiry, it was found that there was a shortage of 2500 kg. of granules, amounting to Rs.2,25,000/- and the petitioner sold the goods outside, in collusion with the other accused, before reaching its destination and, thus, committed the indicated offence. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in pursuance of the statement made by Vijay Singh Yadav, Sr.Manager of the Company, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner

¶13

CRM No.M-34333 of 2010

¶14

¶15

depicted here-in-above.

¶16

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, after going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition.

¶17

However, the celebrated arguments of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant-Company and since, no shortage was found at the time of audit, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 5. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations that the petitioner has committed the theft of 2500 kg. of granules and misappropriated its value to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/-. Since, the police is yet to unearth the scandal of theft and to elicit the truth, so, to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential in this case.

¶18

Moreover, the anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depend on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which should enter the judicial verdict. The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. The order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent the normal procedure of arrest and investigation of the police. The Court has also to see the investigation in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. The court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.

¶19

So, taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the accusation and the totality of the facts and circumstances emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of

¶20

¶21

CRM No.M-34333 of 2010

¶22

anticipatory bail in this context.

¶23

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶24

November 23, 2010 seema

¶25

( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) JUDGE

Bhupender Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupender Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arshdeep Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs Md, H.P.G.C.L and Ors.

Aero Kraft Overseas Business Vs Hry. St. Industrial & Infrastructure Dev. Corp.

Rupinder Kaur Vs State of Haryana

Satish Kumar Vs Punjab State Ware Housing Corp. Chandigarh

Jasbir Singh Bhadana Vs H.U.D.A