Ranbir Singh v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-32941 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:21.11.2016 Ranbir Singh

...Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Chopra, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.230 dated 18.4.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Ratia, Tehsil and District Fatehabad. Notice of motion has been issued in this case. Mr. Vikas Chopra, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the record.

Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.11.22 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-32941 of 2016 [2] In the present case, the FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by one Deepak against Ranbir and Ramesh Garg as the complaint was sent by the Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The allegation in the complaint was that accused Ranbir came to the house of the complainant and stated that he would get him appointed as recruitment of Electricians and Linemen in the Electricity Department is being done and demanded `1 Lakh. During investigation, the Police recorded the statements of about 40 witnesses, who have alleged same type of allegations against the petitioner. The case is at preliminary stage. These witnesses have not been examined so far. If the bail is granted to the present petitioner, there is every possibility that he will tamper with the evidence.

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offences and the fact that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence, I do not find it a fit case where the present petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular bail at this stage.

Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

November 21, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.11.22 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh