The High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving theft. The court held that the facts necessitated custodial interrogation for the petitioner, precluding the grant of bail.
The petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed as the petitioner requires custodial interrogation.
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.
208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-17559 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 27, 2019
Nitin
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Anshul Mangla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Navdeep Singh, AAG, 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.49 dated 20.02.2019 under Section 379-A IPC, registered at Police Station Yamunanagar Sadar, District Yamunanagar.
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.
The FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Ashish Kumar. As per the allegations, on 17.02.2019 at about VINEET GULATI 10.00 p.m., he proceeded from Chandigarh to Yamunanagar and bus 2019.05.29 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-17559 of 2019
-2-
dropped him at Kherada bye-pass at around 2.00 a.m. and he started walking towards Yamunanagar. After some time, two boys came there and took away complainant's Sony Camera, one mobile phone make MI and second mobile phone make Samsung and ran away from the spot. The present petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and no ground is made out for grant of benefit of anticipatory bail to him.
Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is
dismissed.
May 27, 2019 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
VINEET GULATI 2019.05.29 16:16 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. can be granted where the petitioner requires custodial interrogation.
Whether Nominating the petitioner based on a co-accused disclosure statement warrants bail or arrest.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nitin
State of Haryana
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
