Petitioner sought regular bail for offences under IPC sections 379, 411, 413, 420 and 473 regarding purchase of stolen Scorpio. Court rejected bail plea citing habitual dealing in stolen property and fraud.
Petition for regular bail dismissed; petitioner not entitled to bail.
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-24803 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-24803 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : October 3rd , 2012
Angrej Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the State.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Angrej Singh, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 10 dated 4.2.2012 at Police Station Kurali, District Ropar for an offence punishable under sections 379, 411, 413, 420 and 473 of Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are that he had purchased a stolen Scorpio. According to him, the petitioner purchased the vehicle, recovered from him by the police, from one Pritam Singh and said Pritam Singh had purchased the same from Iqbal Mohd. and Naib Singh. He has submitted that the case is triable by the Magistrate of the Ist class and the petitioner is in custody since 4.2.2012. According to him, the
Crl. Misc. No.M-24803 of 2012
2
only other case pending against the petitioner is bearing FIR No. 66 dated 23.10.2011 registered at Police Station, Phase VIII, Mohali for an offence under sections 379, 411, 413 and 473 IPC. According to him, he has been released on bail in that case.
Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that the petitioner is a habitual receiver of stolen property. According to him, in this very case, apart from the vehicle recovered from him in the beginning, the number plate of which was fake, two more vehicles have been recovered from him. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in league with Pritam Singh and others and they are having a gang which deals in theft of the vehicles and sale of them further. He has further submitted that the petitioner is playing fraud with unsuspecting customers and is, therefore, not entitled to bail.
The petitioner cannot claim himself to be the bonafide purchaser. He has no justification for having three vehicles with him. It seems to be his business to steal the vehicles and preparing fake documents and putting fake number plates, he sells the vehicles to unsuspecting customers and in the process he is committing fraud with those persons. The petitioner is involved in another case also of the same nature and he could be said to be a person who is habitual in dealing with the stolen property. Looking to the seriousness of the matter, I do not find the petitioner to be entitled to bail. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
October 3rd , 2012 som
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in案件 involving receipt of stolen vehicles and fake number plates.
Angrej Singh
State of Punjab
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
