Vijay Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others

-1CRM-M-25535 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25535 of 2017 Date of Decision: 19.07.2017 Vijay Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present: - Dr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the instant petition under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been made for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 to 4 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, in case FIR No.81 dated 14.03.2017 under Section 67 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 292-A, 501(a) IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Ambala Cantt, District Ambala.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that private respondents are habitual offenders. They had moved various complaints against the petitioner in police station, but all of them were filed by the police finding the same as false. The private respondents have been booked in several criminal cases of serious nature and one of them is under Section 408, 467, 468, 471, 420, 380, 120-B, 506 IPC vide FIR No.14 dated 14.01.2008 pertaining to Police Station Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. When the police did not take any action against private respondents, petitioner Ravinder Singh 2017.07.20 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document moved CRM-M-17261 of 2017 before this Court to direct the police to take action against the private respondents, who are roaming freely and issuing

-2CRM-M-25535 of 2017 threats to the petitioner. The petitioner has also made representation (Annexure P-3) to the police against threats extended by private respondents to him.

After giving thoughtful consideration, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to cancel the bail of the private respondents inasmuch as no overt act of the private respondents has been brought to the notice of this Court, which may be termed as threat perception to the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner only wants to satisfy his whims by getting cancelled the bail of private respondents without any basis. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

However, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambala Cantt., is directed to look into the representation dated 27.04.2017 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner.

(RAMENDRA JAIN) July 19, 2017 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Ravinder Singh 2017.07.20 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document