The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an FIR alleging receiving stolen property. Petitioner alleged false implication due to a prior complaint against police officials. Court held it as a fit case for bail without custodial interrogation.
Grant of anticipatory bail; interim bail order made absolute.
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.
202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-18635 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 02, 2017
Sanjay Verma
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Yash Dev Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.624 dated 04.11.2016 under Sections 380, 457 and 411 IPC, registered at Police Station Mujesar, District Faridabad.
Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.
In the FIR, the allegations against the petitioner is that he has received stolen property. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought it to Vineet Gulati the notice of this Court that present petitioner has already filed the 2017.08.03 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-18635 of 2017
-2-
complaint against the police officials including ASI Subhash. He has also shown the remand papers showing that ASI Subhash has investigated the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to filing of the complaint against the police official.
The petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is not required for custodial interrogation. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case, where the petitioner is entitled to benefit of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present petition is accepted and the order dated 24.05.2017 granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute.
August 02, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
Vineet Gulati 2017.08.03 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjay Verma
State of Haryana
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
