This is a petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The High Court rejected the prayer, noting the serious allegations of threat to life and fraud against the complainant. The court held custodial interrogation was necessary and dismissed the petition.
Prayer for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 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. Misc. No. M-10513 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-10513 of 2011 Date of decision : 20.4.2011
Harish Kumar & another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking prearrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners under Sections 419, 406, 342, 422 & 506 IPC at Police Station Punhana, District Mewat, vide FIR No.21 dated 19th January, 2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that from a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out. Even otherwise, the petitioners have been falsely implicated. They are, thus, entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail.
Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. According to him, allegations against the petitioners are serious and thus, they are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
Crl. Misc. No. M-10513 of 2011 2
The complaint was lodged by Liyakat Ali. He alleged that certain amount was due to him from the Municipal Committee for the work executed by him. However, the accused fraudulently took the cheque of Rs.5,34,941/- dated 23rd August, 2010, withdrew the money from the bank and distributed amongst themselves. A rifle was put on the chest of the complainant and accused threatened to kill the complainant.
In view of the nature of allegations, stand of the investigating agency to the effect that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
20.4.2011 'rajpal'
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is entitled to the same given the serious nature of allegations involving threats and fraud.
Harish Kumar & another
State of Haryana
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
