A petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was dismissed. The petitioner, a mechanic, was accused of stealing tyres. The court denied bail, ordering custodial interrogation as recovery of remaining tyres from co-accused was pending.
Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was 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.
KAPIL 2015.08.12 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
CRM-M-22259-2015 Date of Decision:12.08.2015
Vijay Kumar Mandal
........Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ........Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr Kshitij Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Mahima, AAG, Haryana. *****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.196 dated 16.03.2015, under Sections 381, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon.
Prosecution story in brief is that the complainant was running a showroom in the name and style of 'Star Wheels'. Petitioner was working under the complainant along with other employees. In January 2015, when complainant checked the stock, he found that there was shortage of 310 tyres.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was innocent and has been falsely involved in this case. Although the petitioner was working as a Mechanic with the complainant but he had not committed any offence.
2
KAPIL 2015.08.12 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that so far as accused Manish Sharma and Amit Yadav, employees of the complainant, are concerned, they were arrested and from their custody, recovery of four tyres was effected. Remaining recovery of the tyres is yet to be effected and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.
In the present case, admittedly the petitioner was working under the complainant. Two employees of the complainant were arrested and recovery of four tyres was effected from them. However, recovery of the remaining tyres is yet to be effected and the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) Judge
August 12, 2015 kapil
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner accused of stealing tyres when recovery is pending from co-accused and custodial interrogation is deemed necessary.
Whether the seriousness of the allegations negates the grounds for granting bail.
Whether the petitioner is guilty of cheating and theft of tyres.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay Kumar Mandal
State of Haryana
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
