Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for alleged theft under Section 408 IPC involving iron rods. Hon'ble Justice R.P. Nagrath dismissed the prayer, finding allegations serious and custodial interrogation necessary, rejecting counsel's contentions of false allegations.
Prayer for anticipatory bail dismissed; no merit found.
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.
CRM-M-10132 of 2015
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-10132 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.04.2015
Samirudin
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
Present: Mr. J.S. Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.
R.P. Nagrath, J. (O&M)
Prayer is made by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 547 dated 08.12.2014 for offence under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at Police Station Sushant Lok, ,District Gurgaon.
As per contents of FIR, the petitioner was site engineer employed by the company of the complainant and he fled away with 6 metric tons of iron rods on 23.11.2014, value of which is about ` 3 lacs.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State counsel and perused the paper-book.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that false allegations have been made and there is no authentic record against the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that there is also statement of the guard of the factory premises. It is
JITENDER KUMAR 2015.04.30 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM-M-10132 of 2015
-2-
further submitted that particulars of the vehicle and recovery of the property is yet to be made from the petitioner.
In view of above, I would find that allegations against the
petitioner are serious and his custodial interrogation is required.
No merit. Dismissed.
April 29, 2015 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) jk JUDGE
JITENDER KUMAR 2015.04.30 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted in light of serious allegations of theft involving property and recovery of stolen goods.
Whether custodial interrogation is required given the seriousness of allegations against the petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Samirudin
State of Haryana
R.P. Nagrath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
