High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/29440/2015dismissed

Mohit Sharma v. State Of Punjab

2015-09-01Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-29440 of 2015 Date of Decision: September 01, 2015 Mohit Sharma

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Baljinder Singh Sra, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.25 dated 23.05.2015 under Section 382 IPC, registered at Police Station Old Shalley, District Gurdaspur.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

The FIR in the present case has been got registered by Prince Mahajan by mainly stating that on 22.05.2015, at about 8.00 P.M., he was sitting at his Kiryana shop. Three youth riding on motorcycle came to his shop, out of which one person kept sitting on the motorcycle and two persons came inside the shop and asked for packet of cigarette. When the complainant was about to hand-over a packet of cigarette, then one person caught hold of him and the other VINEET GULATI 2015.09.07 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-29440 of 2015 -2person snatched chain from his neck, which was about 21⁄2 tolas. He tried to catch them but they pushed him and fled away from the spot on the motorcycle. The complainant got up and noted down the number of motorcycle which was PB-02CD-4278.

During investigation, two co-accused have been apprehended and motorcycle belonging to co-accused has also been recovered. During the investigation, the name of present petitioner came to light.

As regarding the certificates issued by Municipal Councillor or some private persons to the effect that petitioner has enmity with the co-accused, is no ground to grant the anticipatory bail at this stage.

Keeping in view the allegations in the FIR, nature and gravity of the offence and in view of the fact that petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, I do not find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

September 01, 2015 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI 2015.09.07 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh