Dismissed

Vinod Kumar @ Bunty v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Apr 2013CRM-M/10401/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two petitions for anticipatory bail filed by accused persons named in an FIR regarding the supply of pre-activated SIM cards with fake documents. The Court rejected arguments citing previous judgments, held petitioners could not escape verification responsibilities, and found them not fit for bail.

What did the court decide?

Both petitions for anticipatory bail were dismissed.

Vinod Kumar @ Bunty Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-10401 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-10401 of 2013 Date of decision : April 12, 2013

Vinod Kumar @ Bunty

....Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶10

Present : Mr. DS Malwai, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab

¶11

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶12

By this common order, I am disposing of two petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. No. M-10401 of 2013 filed by accused Vinod Kumar @ Bunty and Criminal Misc. No. M-9989 of 2013 filed by accused Jagdish Chander Sabharwal because both the petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in one and same FIR No. 19 dated 14.3.2013 under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Division No. 3, Ludhiana.

¶13

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to prosecution version, secret information was received that both these petitioners and their co-accused Ramesh Kumar were preparing and selling activated SIM cards of mobile telephones prepared in fake names on the basis of fake documents. On raid at the shop

¶14

Criminal Misc. No. M-10401 of 2013

¶15

-2-

¶16

of Ramesh Kumar, 185 pre-activated SIM cards in fake names and also documents of fake addresses were recovered.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner Vinod Kumar @ Bunty contended that he was employee of Chopra International and as such had carried and supplied SIM cards given by his employer to the retailer against receipt and the said petitioner had no role in the preparation of the SIM cards.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner Jagdish Chander Sabharwal contended that in the past, if the petitioner at all may have sold any SIM card, it was the duty of the service provider to verify the documents. Reliance has been placed on unreported judgment passed in Criminal Misc. No. M-13147 of 2010, titled Arun Kumar versus State of Punjab decided on 7.7.2010.

¶19

On the other hand, learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Pakhar Singh stated that petitioner Vinod Kumar @ Bunty alleged in the petition that he is employee of Videocon company but in fact he is employee of Chopra International even as per Annexure P/1 annexed by the petitioner as also conceded by counsel for the petitioner who stated that it was wrongly averred in paragraph 1 of the petition that petitioner is employee of Videocon company. Learned State counsel contended that role of petitioner Vinod Kumar has also been stated by co-accused Ramesh Kumar who was arrested at the spot. He disclosed that all the three accused

¶20

Criminal Misc. No. M-10401 of 2013

¶21

-3-

¶22

i.e. both the petitioners and Ramesh Kumar were involved in the process and money was also being distributed amongst them. It was also stated that all the SIM cards which were recovered had already been activated.

¶23

Judgment dated 7.7.2010 in the case of Arun Kumar (supra) does not help the petitioner in the instant case. Even as per observations in the said judgment, it would be debatable if it is the sole responsibility of the petitioner to determine the correct addresses or it is also the responsibility of the service provider to verify correct addresses. Thus, the petitioners cannot escape responsibility regarding verification of addresses of the SIM card holders and the correctness or genuineness of the documents on the basis of which the SIM cards are issued.

¶24

In the instant case, large number of pre-activated SIM cards have been recovered along with fake documents. Both the petitioners have also been named in the FIR on the basis of secret information. Keeping in view the very serious allegations and all other circumstances of the case but without meaning to express any opinion on merits thereof, I do not find it to be a fit case to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed.

¶25

April 12, 2013 'dalbir'

¶26

( L.N. Mittal ) Judge

Vinod Kumar @ Bunty v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar @ Bunty v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita and Anr. Vs Royal Orchid Company Rajpura and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs Royal Orchid Company, Rajpura and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Punjab etc.

M/S Rkt Woolen Mills Vs M/S Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills

M/S Vinod Textiles Vs M/S Br Wollen Mills

Surinder Singh @ Billa & Anr. Vs State of Punjab