← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/25841/2017dismissed

Pardeep Kumar @ Raju Sharma v. State Of Punjab

2017-07-20Mrs Justice Daya Chaudhary2 pages

CRM-M-25841-2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25841-2017 Date of decision: 20.07.2017 Pardeep Kumar @ Raju Sharma ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 74 dated 03.06.2017 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 379-B read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Islamabad, Amirtsar. 2.

In nutshell, around 11.30 p.m. on 03.06.2017, complainantMohd. Jafrool, Electrician, while returning to his house on his Activa Scooter bearing registration No. PB-08-BB-6252, carrying a tool bag with him, when reached near Gurudwara Shaheed Ganj, four young persons came there on two Activa Scooters and threatened him. They snatched his mobile and bag and tried to run away. On his raising alarm, two of the assailants namely; Sunny Chopra and Shankar, were apprehended on the spot by the police and two succeeded in fleeing away. During interrogation, Sunny Chopra, disclosed the names of other two persons, who had managed to escape as Raju Sharma (petitioner herein) and Shala, as co-accused in Rishu Kataria 2017.07.20 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M-25841-2017 -2commission of crime.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is not named in the FIR. He has been involved in this case, on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by Sunny Chopra, which is a very weak type of evidence. No recovery has to be effected from the petitioner. 4.

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, but without commenting on the merits of the case, in considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail, because his custodial interrogation is definitely required, as it is a case of snatching on public road. It is needless to mention here that such type of crimes have increased manifolds in the recent past. 5.

Dismissed.

July 20, 2017 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Rishu Kataria 2017.07.20 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document