Dismissed

Sube Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2012CRM-M/1880/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court rejected the plea due to inconsistent versions of events and the petitioner’s lack of cooperation. Directions were issued for fresh investigation into allegations of misconduct by the investigative officer and a constable.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed. Interim order vacated. Investigation remanded to a superior police officer.

Sube Singh Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-1880 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 1880 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: May 3, 2012.

Sube Singh @Suba.

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Haryana.

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. Sunil K.Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Manish Deswal, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

Mr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶14

¶15

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶16

The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.1 dated 01.01.2012, under Sections 420/120B IPC, registered at police station Alewa, District Jind.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Jind dismissing bail application filed by the petitioner.

¶18

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-

¶19

CRM No.M-1880 of 2012

¶20

¶21

accused that he had rightly identified accused-Sudhir in FIR no. 35 dated 12.02.2008, under Section 61 of Excise Act, 1914, registered at police station Alewa and that it was he from whose possession eight bottles of country made liquor were recovered when he was intercepted by the police and that he stood surety for him as he belongs to a village in which he was having a liquor contract. It is further contended that however, as this conviction was coming in way of Sudhir and hence, in connivance with the police he filed this false case against the petitioner.

¶22

However, this plea taken by the petitioner-accused before this Court is quite contrary to the plea taken before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. It was pleaded on behalf of the petitioner-accused before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind that he signed blank paper in good faith on the asking of the police in the police station and later on, the papers were converted into surety bonds and that he did not know the complainant. Hence, there was no reason for him to cheat the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain this contrary stand taken before this Court and before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind.

¶23

It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondentState that though petitioner has joined the investigation and however, he is not cooperating and is not disclosing the name of the person for whom he stood surety. Hence, it is contended that his custodial interrogation is necessary. It has been contended that co-accused, SI Ram Niwas (then ASI) is also involved in this case as he had arrested the accused in FIR no.35 dated 12.02.2008, under Section 61 of the Excise Act, 1914 and that he had mentioned the name of present complainant i.e. Sudhir and thereafter,

¶24

CRM No.M-1880 of 2012

¶25

¶26

petitioner had stood surety for him. However, it came during investigation that Sudhir was not apprehended and no recovery was effected from Sudhir and that rather recovery was effected from some other person and name of Sudhir was wrongly mentioned. There are serious allegations against the petitioner accused as well as against co-accused SI Ram Niwas (then ASI).

¶27

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.

¶28

Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Sube Singh @Suba is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶29

Interim order dated 19.01.2012 already granted in his favour stands vacated.

¶30

The Investigating Officer is directed to properly investigate in this case regarding the role of SI Ram Niwas (then ASI) as well, who had mentioned the name of present complainant -Sudhir falsely in the said FIR no.35 dated 12.02.2008.

¶31

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was declared to be innocent by the Investigating Officer.

¶32

Hence, the concerned Superintendent of Police is directed to get this case investigated from some police officer of higher rank.

¶33

Copy of the order be given Dasti to learned counsel for respondent-State under the signatures of Bench Secretary.

¶34

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶35

May 3, 2012. ‘om’

Sube Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sube 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

Shamma Vs State of Punjab

Ramesh @ Mipra Vs State of Haryana

Pawan & Anr. Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Mattu Pardhan @ Nikka Vs State of Haryana

Harjatinder Sharma Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Paramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab