Satinder Kumar Alias Happy v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 16.01.2024 Satinder Kumar @ Happy

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU Present :

Mr. Manjinder Singh Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. M.S.Tiwana, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent.

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

Petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No.36 dated 28.03.2022, under Section 379 read with Section 511, Section 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

2.

Short reply dated 16.01.2024 by way of affidavit of Daljit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, on behalf of the respondent, filed by learned State counsel, is taken on record. Copy thereof supplied to the opposite side. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. 3.

Above FIR was got registered on the statement of complainantManjit Singh with the allegations that petitioner along with other co-accused had tried to rob ATM installed at Satnaur.

-24.

Contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR; rather nominated on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused Bunty Rajput and no notice under Section 41 Cr.P.C had been given; thus, the petitioner deserves concession of pre-arrest bail.

5.

Per contra, learned State counsel, while making reference to aforesaid reply, submits that apart from FIR No.85 dated 29.04.2023, under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Section Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur, petitioner is also involved in FIR No.65 dated 04.04.2023, under Section 457, Section 380 read with Section 511, Section 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur. Also submits that complicity of the petitioner is well apparent; therefore, petitioner does not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail; rather custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth true facts of the case. 6.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook. 7.

Of course, petitioner was not named in the FIR, but co-accused Bunty Rajput has specifically named the petitioner regarding stealing of Rs.16,600/- from the ATM. Since, theft on the ATM is a serious matter and is increasing day by day now-a-days; thus, custodial interrogation would be very much necessary to know the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner along with other co-accused.

8.

As a result thereof, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of petitioner and the same is dismissed.

-39.

Ordered accordingly.

10.

It is clarified that observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the controversy, in any manner.

11.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 16.01.2024 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) adhikari JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned :

Yes No Whether Reportable :

Yes No