This single judge order dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the source of illegally mined stones and the petitioner's involvement in the racket.
Petition for anticipatory bail 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.
-1-
Crl.M.No.M-12519 of 2013(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-12519 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: April 22, 2013
Harun
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.21963 of 2013
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-12519 of 2013
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.198, dated 23.3.2013, under Sections 279, 336, 379, 411 and 120-B IPC and under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, registered at Police Station Sohna, District Gurgaon.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that on 23.3.2013 at 9.30 a.m., police party was on patrol duty at Palwal road Shani Mandi, when in the meanwhile, a vehicle bearing registration No.HR731936 being driven by co-accused Fakarudeen was intercepted and it was found that the same was carrying stone extracted by mining being conducted in illegal manner. On interrogation, co-accused disclosed that he was carrying the said stones at the instance of owner of the truck, i.e., the present petitioner. He had also disclosed that all the documents of the
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-12519 of 2013(O&M)
vehicle are also with the present petitioner.
It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that petitioner was not found indulging in illegal mining and that recovery has already been effected from driver of the petitioneraccused. It is further contended that moreover truck and the stones have already been recovered and hence custodial interrogation of the petitioneraccused in not necessary.
However, there are serious allegations against petitioneraccused. There is no dispute that he is owner of the truck in which stones obtained by illegal mining were being transported. At this stage, it cannot be believed that the stones were being carried out by the driver of the petitioner without his permission and without his knowledge. Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner -accused is necessary to know about the source of the said stones being carried and about involvement of other persons in this racket.
In view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Harun for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
22.4.2013 meenu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of illegal mining and transportation of stones.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Harun
State of Haryana
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
