Sandeep v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-3926-2018 Date of decision: 07.03.2018 Sandeep .... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana.

***** Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered against him vide FIR No.151 dated 22.11.2017 under Sections 406/420 IPC at Police Station Mohana, District Sonepat.

Complaint, in the present case, was lodged by Angoori. The complainant stated that her elder son had purchased a TATA MAGIC TEMPO bearing registration No.HR-99-D-6672. In the month of January, 2016, accused came to their house and informed that they had come from TATA Finance Company and were authorized to take the car in lieu of default of payment in installments. They took the vehicle after issuing certain receipts. On 13/14th October, 2017, a person namely Rohit came to their home and informed that the car was not taken by the Insurance Company. At that time, complainant contacted the concerned persons. It was found that Pawan, Vinod and Sandeep, who had taken the said vehicle were not authorized by the company. Today a status report by way of Sukhpreet Kaur 2018.03.08 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-3926-2018 ::2::

affidavit of Rajiv Deswal, DSP, Gohana, Sonepat, has been filed in court. Same is taken on record. Para 5 thereof reads as under:- "5. That in the instant case there are specific and direct allegations with regard to cheating against the petitioner and for proper investigation of the instant case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, because the vehicle in question was taken over by the petitioner and co-accused and to ascertain the fate of said vehicle and name of person, to whom they had handed over said vehicle, has to be ascertained from the petitioner and if such opportunity is not availed by the investigating agency, the investigation of this case will be affected adversely."

In view of the above, petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) March 07, 2018 JUDGE sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Sukhpreet Kaur 2018.03.08 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document