In a bail petition, the petitioner argued false implication in a snatching case while the state highlighted recovery of stolen goods proving his guilt. The High Court dismissed the plea, holding serious allegations precluded greater jail concession.
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-
CRM-M-5450 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-5450 of 2019 Date of decision: 04.04.2019
Pardeep
......Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: - Mr. Rakesh Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Through instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising from FIR No.230 dated 27.10.2018 registered under Sections 379-B, 325, 34 IPC at Police Station Chhapar, Yamuna Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that complainant named only two assailants. Petitioner has been implicated falsely. In fact, fight took place in between two drivers, namely, Jaswant and driver of another truck, which has been given the colour of attempt to theft, adding the ingredients of snatching. Petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2018. Conclusion of trial may take a sufficient long time. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner any more in jail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel, refuting above submissions, contends that petitioner is the main conspirator, who in conspiracy with his co-accused Pardeep Kumar committed the impugned
RAVINDER SINGH 2019.04.09 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
CRM-M-5450 of 2019
crime taking advantage of his master Jaswant's asleep. One tyre and tool ( panna) along with cash `400/- was recovered from the petitioner, which proves his complicity beyond any shadow of doubt.
Heard.
Considering the rival submissions and seriousness of allegations against the petitioner, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail.
Dismissed.
(Ramendra Jain) April 04, 2019 Judge R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
RAVINDER SINGH 2019.04.09 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant regular bail to the petitioner implicated in an FIR alleging snatching and attempt to theft.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pardeep
State of Haryana
Ramendra Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
