← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/51432/2018dismissed

Darshan v. State Of Haryana

2019-01-18Lok Adalat Bench - 12 pages

CRM-M-51432-2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1.

CRM-M-51432-2018 Darshan .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .... Respondent 2.

CRM-M-50790-2018 Pardeep .... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .... Respondent Date of Decision: 18.01.2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

Present:

Mr. Parmod Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-51432-2018).

Mr. JP Jangu, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-50790-2018).

Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Amardeep Sheoran, Advocate for the complainant. RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) By this common order two above titled petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s), are being disposed of as both have arisen out of FIR No. 191 dated 30.08.2018 registered under Sections 379-B and 506 IPC (Section 201 IPC added lateron) at Police Station Bawal, District Rewari. For brevity, the facts are RISHU KATARIA 2019.01.25 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-51432-2018 -2being extracted from CRM-M-51432-2018.

According to the prosecution, in the evening of 30.08.2018, the petitioners along with their three accomplice, total five in number caused injuries to the complainant and snatched his mobile phone and robbed him for `5000/-.

Learned counsel inter alia contends that both the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case. Main accused, namely; Dinesh, has already been enlarged on regular bail. No recovery has to be effected from the petitioners, therefore, their custodial interrogation is not required.

On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners.

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, but without commenting on the merits of the case, in considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail, because their custodial interrogation is definitely required, as it is a case of snatching on public road. It is needless to mention here that such type of crimes have increased manifold in the recent past. Dismissed.

January 18, 2019 (RAMENDRA JAIN) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2019.01.25 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document