The single-judge bench dismissed the second pre-arrest bail petition of Nafe Singh. The Court held that no changed circumstances existed and the petitioner failed to avail the liberty granted in his earlier withdrawn petition to surrender.
The petition for pre-arrest bail was dismissed, holding that no case to grant the concession is made out.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. 21771 of 2011 . [O&M] Date of Decision: 22nd July, 2011 .
Nafe Singh
Petitioner through Mr. Neeraj Gaur, Advocate
Versus
State of Haryana.
Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]
In this second petition, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in the case FIR No. 648 dated 31.12.2010, registered under Sections 406/409/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC and Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station, Nuh, District Mewat. The afore-stated FIR has been registered on the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chief Minister's Flying Squad, Faridabad.
The petitioner earlier also approached this Court by way of Criminal Misc. No. 12282 of 2011 which was, however, withdrawn by him on 16.05.2011 with the following liberty:-
“ Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks and is granted permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the Ilaqa Magistrate. The petitioner may thereafter seek his release on regular bail and in case he does so, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law preferably on the same day but not later than two days”.
The petitioner was one of the Sub Registrar posted at
Nuh who is alleged to have registered certain sale deeds at the instance and in connivance with the then Land Acquisition Collector at Nuh. One of the petitioner's co-accused, namely, Mohd. Ishaq also approached this Court vide Criminal Misc. No. M-12794 of 2011 which was dismissed on 31st May, 2011 for the reasons already assigned by this Court in the order dated 16th May, 2011 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 2999 of 2011 [K.K.Amrohi v State of Haryana] which was filed by the main accused – K.K.Amrohi.
In this second petition, no changed circumstances have been referred to which may persuade this Court to entertain this petition. Contrary to it, the petitioner failed to avail the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 16.05.2011. As the matter involves syphoning of a huge amount of the public funds by the main accused in the alleged connivance of the petitioner and other associates and for the reasons already assigned by this Court in the order dated 16th May, 2011 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 2999 of 2011 [K.K.Amrohi
v State of Haryana] , I am of the considered view that no case to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail is made out.
Dismissed.
July 22, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted despite the absence of changed circumstances compared to a previous withdrawn petition.
Whether the petitioner availing the liberty to surrender before the Magistrate affects the grant of bail.
Whether allegations of syphoning public funds constitute sufficient grounds to refuse bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.K.Amrohi v State of HaryanaReferred¶16
Criminal Misc. No. 2999 of 2011 [K.K.Amrohi v State of Haryana]
Nafe Singh
State of Haryana
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
