← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/22259/2015dismissed

Vijay Kumar Mandal v. State Of Haryana

2015-08-12Mr Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain2 pages

KAPIL 2015.08.12 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M-22259-2015 Date of Decision:12.08.2015 Vijay Kumar Mandal ........Petitioner

Versus

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

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr Kshitij Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima, AAG, Haryana.

***** SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.196 dated 16.03.2015, under Sections 381, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon. Prosecution story in brief is that the complainant was running a showroom in the name and style of 'Star Wheels'. Petitioner was working under the complainant along with other employees. In January 2015, when complainant checked the stock, he found that there was shortage of 310 tyres.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was innocent and has been falsely involved in this case. Although the petitioner was working as a Mechanic with the complainant but he had not committed any offence.

KAPIL 2015.08.12 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that so far as accused Manish Sharma and Amit Yadav, employees of the complainant, are concerned, they were arrested and from their custody, recovery of four tyres was effected. Remaining recovery of the tyres is yet to be effected and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

In the present case, admittedly the petitioner was working under the complainant. Two employees of the complainant were arrested and recovery of four tyres was effected from them. However, recovery of the remaining tyres is yet to be effected and the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out.

Dismissed.

August 12, 2015 (SABINA) kapil Judge