Nadeem Siddiqui v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....

Criminal Misc. No.M-6022 of 2019 Date of decision:08.02.2019 Nadeem Siddiqui

...Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Hanif Mohommed and Mr. Sehel Khan, Advocates for the petitioner.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this second petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.349 dated 23.11.2017 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 166, 167, 384, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 8, 10, 12, 13(1)(d)(e) and 15 of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram, District Gurugram. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

The bail petition of the present petitioner has been decided on merit on 17.12.2018 by this Court. It has been specifically held in the order that some driving licences, RCs etc. have been issued or renewed with the connivance of the officials of the RTA office and in view of the allegations in the FIR and the fact that recoveries of so many driving licences, RCs etc. HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2019.02.12 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-6022 of 2019 [2] have been effected from the house of the present petitioner, he is required for custodial interrogation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not shown me any fresh ground for grant of anticipatory bail. Nothing has been shown that how the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. Therefore, no ground is made out in the second petition for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

February 08, 2019.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2019.02.12 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh