High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/44124/2018dismissed

Gurdeep Singh @ Mann Singh v. State Of Haryana

2018-10-11Lok Adalat Bench - 12 pages

-1CRM-M-44124 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-44124 of 2018 Date of Decision: 11.10.2018 Gurdeep Singh @ Mann Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present:- Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Yashwinder Singh, DAG, Haryana.

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Through this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to petitioner in a case arising from FIR No.297 dated 12.10.2017 registered under Section 392, 397 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Pinjore, Haryana. According to the prosecution, on 12.10.2017, four persons forcibly snatched Verna car bearing registration No.HR-99ACH-4592 of complainant Gagandeep @ Gaggi at gun point. During investigation, petitioner was arrested on the disclosure statement of co-accused, naneky, Parminder Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner is not named in the FIR. He has falsely been implicated on disclosure statement of co-accused Parminder Singh, which is a very weak type of evidence. He has no connection with the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Maulana Mohd. Amir RAVINDER SINGH 2018.10.12 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

-2CRM-M-44124 of 2018 Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 586 (S.C.). On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed grant of regular bail to petitioner on the ground that petitioner is a habitual offender. Providing a list of 26 cases in which the petitioner is involved, he prays for rejection of bail application of the petitioner. Heard.

Considering the fact of registration of 26 cases against the petitioner of similar and different nature, including the present one under the NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

Facts and circumstances of the aforesaid judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on the facts to the case in hand. Therefore, no benefit of the same can be given to the petitioner.

Dismissed.

(RAMENDRA JAIN) October 11, 2018 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2018.10.12 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document