Pardeep Vs State of Haryana

In paragraph 14 of the bail pe��on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. However, as per custody cer�ficate dated 05.02.2025, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

¶17

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Date	Offenses	Police Sta1on
1	786	11.10.2015	302, 201, 392, 414,	Civil Lines Karnal, Karnal
			34 IPC and 25 of
			Arms Act
2	109	2020	42 of Prisons Act	Ram Nagar,Karnal

¶18

The facts and allega�ons are taken from the translated copy of the FIR a;ached to the bail pe��on, which reads as follows:

¶19

“To The SHO Sahab, Police Sta�on IMT Rohtak. Sir, It is submi�ed that I, Ashok son of Raja Ram, am resident of village Boliya, Tehsil Gharauth, District Mansor MP and do job of Muneem in Dibakar Trading Company Bo�ya. On dated 16.02.24, owner of the company by making a phone call, sent Truck No.UP31AT 7576 by Jai Bhawani Code Lise Transport and owner of truck namely, Deepak son of Baljit Singh resident of H.No.1468,

¶20

JYOTI 2025.02.15 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

1

2

CRM-M-37145-2024

Himtana Panna Mundlana, District Sonepat and driver of truck namely, Sunil son of Suresh Kumar Ward No.5, Rohtak alongwith the truck came in the Diwakar Company and owner of the company loaded 30 Ton 40 KG mustard in the truck from Bhiwani. Value of the mustard is Rs.15.00 lacs and the company had sent me as Muneem with the truck for Bhiwani. When on dated 17.02.24, when we reached at Outer Byepass, Rohtak Delhi Road at about 10.30 PM, the truck owner Deepak a;er ge<ng me alighted from the truck on the pretext of taking tea etc., a;er ge<ng me sit in the Auto, took me at Delhi Byepass and on the pretext of taking tea etc. a;er ge<ng me board in the Auto, asked to reach near the truck. When I reached near the truck, I did not find the truck there and I made serious search thereof, but I did not find the truck anywhere. Then I made a phone call to the truck owner, and the phone was found switched off. The truck owner in collusion with his driver Sunil, has commi�ed breach of trust with me and my owner. Kindly take appropriate legal ac�on against the truck owner and driver and our mustard may be got returned. Ashok. Applicant Ashok son of Raja Ram, resident of Boliya MP MOB NO 99817xxxxx, Dated 18.02.24. Police ac�on Today I, SI alongwith ASI Baljit Singh No.191/RTK, on government motorcycle for patrolling, crime checking was present at outer Rohtak Byepass, Delhi Road, near Baba Hanuman Mandir Kharawar, when complainant Ashok son of Raja Ram, resident of Boliya, District Mansor MP a;er mee�ng me, SI, submi�ed a wri�en applica�on. From the contents of the applica�on, finding commission of offence under Sec�on 406 IPC, present wri�ng is sent to the police sta�on through ASI Baljit 191/RTK. A;er registering the case, FIR number be in�mated. 1. Sl alongwith complainant proceed to the place of occurrence. At Outer Rohtak Byepass Kharawar. SD SI Surender, Police Post, Kharawar, Rohtak DT. 18.02.2024 AT 10.10 PM. At Police Sta�on: On receipt of the wri�ng in the police sta�on, a;er registering FIR No.47 dated 18.02.2024, under Sec�on 406 IPC, in PS IMT Rohtak, in the presence of L/ASI Sudesh 922, a;er preparing copies of FIR, same will be sent to the concerned officers by post. Copy of police file alongwith original wri�ng is being sent to the IO at the spot through ASI Baljit 191/RTK. The facts have been disclosed to SHO Sahab.”

¶25

The pe��oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi�ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera�on would cause an irreversible injus�ce to the pe��oner and their family.

¶26

JYOTI 2025.02.15 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

2

3

CRM-M-37145-2024

The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶31

It would be appropriate to refer to the following por�ons of the reply, which read as follows:

¶32

“10. That the specific role of the pe��oner is that he provide the forged documents to co-accused and on the basis of which the accused were using the truck in ques�on.”

¶33

4. That in reply to the contents of para no.4 of the pe��on it is submi�ed that the pe��oner is named in his case on the basis of disclosure statement of inves�ga�on, co-accused. During the inves�ga�on on 01/4/2024 the record of licence No. HR-46-20190007412 pertaining to Sunil S/o Suresh (on which photo of Pardeep was found affixed) was obtained from RTA Rohtak and as per record the said licence was not issued by RTA Rohtak. The accused got prepared a forged driving licence by affixing his photo and using the address of pe��oner. The pe��oner provide the said driving licence to co-accused.

¶34

REASONING:

¶35

Perusal of the file shows that pe��oner had concealed the criminal history and further allega�on is that he made forged documents for using the truck, therefore pe��oner is not en�tled to bail.

¶36

A perusal of the bail pe��on and the documents a;ached primafacie points towards the pe��oner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of crime would not jus�fy bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the pe��oner; this court refrains from doing so.

¶37