Maskin @ Meen v. State Of Punjab

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-19499 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:19.8.2016 Maskin alias Meen

...Petitioner

v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

....

Coram:

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

Present:

Mr. J.S. Jaidka, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shivali, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.21 dated 2.3.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 392, 365 and 427 IPC at Police Station Nawanshahr Sadar, District S.B.S. Nagar.

Notice of motion has been issued in this case. Ms. Shivali, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance and contested this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the record. As per the FIR, the complainant-Sharafat Ali was driver of truck Tata 2515 bearing No.HR-38-8688 for about three years and on Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.22 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-19499 of 2016 [2] 1.3.2016, he along with the owner of the truck, namely, Ajas, were going towards Dera Bassi from Cattle Market, Subhwanpur. The truck was laden with buffaloes and calfs. When the truck reached near Village Kahma , car make Tata Indica came and 5-6 youths armed with iron rods etc. alighted from the car and three of them forcibly opened window of driver side of the truck and pulled out its key. They threatened the complainant side and robbed the truck and further tied their faces and hands with cloth. It is the allegation that they drove away the truck sometimes on the link road and some time on the G.T. Road and they took away the mobile phones of the complainant and his owner.

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offences and further that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, I do not find it a fit case where the present petitioner is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

August 19, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.22 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh