Mahinder Singh v. State Of Haryana
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......
Criminal Misc. No.M-26350 of 2016 .....
Date of decision:3.8.2016 Mahinder Singh
...Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana
...Respondent
....
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....
Present:
Ms. Deipa Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. .....
Inderjit Singh, J.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.139 dated 22.4.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 367 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that the FIR has been registered on the statement of Paras Kamboj alias Robin, who stated that on 20.4.2016 at about 10.45 p.m. he and his relative Rahul went for meal together and after that they went for a walk towards the nursery. At that time, a white swift car No.HR-05-AD-1020 or 1050 came and stopped near them. Suddenly, a boy came out of the car and forcibly took him inside the car. After that two more men came from behind and sat in the car with him. Behind them two Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.08 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-26350 of 2016 [2] more boys, namely, Rahul son of Kanwar Pal and Shanky son of Mahender were there, but they did not sit in the car. As per the allegations the boys sitting in the car pointed a gun at his ear pit, but the second boy sitting in the car said Mahender had only given `5 Lakhs to them and do not kill him for five lakhs rupees and they took him to a lonely passage, where they took him out of the car and gave beatings with rods. They picked up wooden rod lying there and gave beating to him and they ran away from the spot with the car leaving him behind. As per the prosecution version, there is fracture on his right arm and injuries were given on legs and hands.
The present petitioner Mahinder Singh is named in the FIR and as per the prosecution version he had hired other persons to kidnap the complainant and cause injuries etc. He is required for custodial interrogation. Otherwise also, in view of the nature and gravity of the offences, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.
August 3, 2016.
(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:
Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.08 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh