High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/35748/2017dismissed

Gaurav Sharma v. State Of Punjab

2017-10-03Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-35748 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 03, 2017 Gaurav Sharma

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.K.S.Aulakh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.168 dated 23.11.2016 under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, District Hoshiapur.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that as per allegations in the FIR, petitioner Gaurav Sharma was appointed as Service Machine Operator by the M/s Forbes Tecnosys Limited for receiving the bills. The Corporation Vineet Gulati 2017.10.06 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-35748 of 2017 -2used to collect the cash/cheque, deposited in the machine as payment of bills in the afternoon at around 2.00 p.m. On 24.08.2016, at around 2.00 p.m., the cash/cheques were collected by the office. On 25.08.2016, it was government holiday. During this, Gaurav Sharma without informing the office, went away after handing over the keys of machine to machine operator Surjit Kumar. On 26.08.2016, the machine was found broken and it is also in the FIR that cash of `52,050/- and three cheques amounting to `32,722/- have been stolen.

From the perusal of the record, I find that the petitioner is named in the FIR. Active role has been attributed to him. The petitioner is required for custodial interrogation.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, 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.

October 03, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.10.06 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh