High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/8618/2021dismissed

Sushil Kumar Trivedi v. State Of Haryana

2021-09-13Mr. Justice Amol Rattan Singh6 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:13.09.2021 Sushil Kumar Trivedi ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

Present:

Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) ase heard via

Vide this petition, the petitioner seeks the concession of 'anticipatory bail' under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., upon FIR no.348, dated 27.10.2020, having been registered at Police Station Gadpuri Palwal, District Palwal, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 408, 420 and 120 of the IPC, with Section 406 thereof added subsequently in the FIR and Section 120-B inserted by a correction instead of Section 120 thereof (by an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Palwal, copy Annexure P-2).

-2On 24.02.2021 the following order had been passed by this court:- !

" #$%

' ( )

*+, $#%-./0-0-0(

" 1

(

" #0%#-0 /-0

+ " #02

( 3 *+," /-0! (

" /-0

(

6 7-8 9

(

: "(

(( ( "

4( ) (

(

& (

;

(

!"<& 1

(

" &

*+, 9

*+,

(

(51&8 (

-3-

(

( & (

(

( ( "

(

( (

3( (

" #$%5-8

(

+ 3

-4- 0?0#-0-/ @

A Thereafter the petitioner having been allowed to continue on interim bail in view of the fact that learned State counsel had sought time to file a detailed reply to the petition, such reply, dated 08.04.2021, has been filed by the DSP, Palwal, which is ordered to be taken on record. As per the said reply, 25 trucks were found to be involved in the commission of the offence, with scrap loaded onto them worth Rs.8,42,795/- , which was unloaded, allegedly by the petitioner and his accomplish Narender Kumar, at a place other than the destination of the said material, with both, the petitioner and Narender Kumar, having joined inquiry initially but upon the petitioners' statement having been recorded thereafter, Narender Kumar having run away from there.

It was also found that one of the vehicles was found to be registered in the name of the petitioner and that another vehicle had been hired by him from one Vimal Kumar (as per the case of the investigating agency), with the petitioner having got the vehicle unloaded at a scrap go-down. It is also stated in the affidavit that during investigation the petitioner had disclosed that he had paid the rent for one vehicle in cash, but upon query from the company concerned, it was found that no amount was paid in cash by the company, which is stated to be always making payments on-line (as per the representative of that company).

Eventually, it has been stated in the affidavit that the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation agency, as he has neither got the material

-5recovered, nor paid the costs towards that material. Looking at the entire circumstances of the case, with learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the contents of the affidavit, I would find no reason to continue with the petition, even though learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all documentary evidence as was required, is already with the police.

It is to be noticed that as per the investigation carried out so far, the petitioner has been found by the investigating agency to be in collusion with his co-accused; with some of his statements found to be false; and therefore, with a large amount of scrap allegedly having been embezzled, this petition is dismissed, with the interim order vacated, but with it made clear that nothing stated in any of the orders passed in this case shall be treated to be an observation by this court on the merits of the case, with the investigation to continue on the basis of the evidence gathered and thereafter the trial (if it comes to that stage), to continue on the basis of evidence led before that court.

It is also to be noticed here that learned counsel for the petitioner, other than submitting that all documentary evidence is available with the investigating agency, has also submitted that he has also not received a copy of the reply filed.

Even if that is so, in any case the entire mater already having been gone into in detail by this court, I see no reason to continue with this petition. [Learned State counsel has however submitted that the copy of the reply has been sent to learned counsel for the petitioner through email; however, even if counsel for the petitioner has not received a copy thereof, for the reasons

-6already given hereinabove, the petition has been dismissed.] September 13, 2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) dinesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No