High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/51468/2018dismissed

Sourabh Mishra v. State Of Haryana

2018-12-01Lok Adalat Bench - 12 pages

CRM-42383-2018 in/and CRM-M-51468-2018 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-42383-2018 in/and CRM-M-51468-2018 Date of decision: 01.12.2018 Sourabh Mishra ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Anjan Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) CRM-42383-2018 Allowed as prayed for.

Copy of final form/report dated 26.07.2018 (Annexure P-5) filed along with the application is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Be tagged at the appropriate place. CRM-M-51468-2018 Through this second petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 105 dated 08.05.2017 registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC at Police Station Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner and his accomplice-Sumit Kumar, cheated the complainant-Dr. Raj Kumar Atri, for Rs. 27,00,000/- adducing and alluring him on false promises. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that RISHU KATARIA 2018.12.04 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-42383-2018 in/and CRM-M-51468-2018 -2petitioner is innocent. Co-accused, Sumit Kumar, is the main culprit, who in his disclosure statement has categorically stated that he alone had cheated the complainant. In a way, main accused-Sumit Kumar, has not alleged anything about the complicity of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned State counsel strongly refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is a gangster. He in connivance with his co-accused-Sumit Kumar, had cheated several other persons. Therefore, his custodial interrogation is required so as to trace about the role and involvement of his other accomplice.

In view of the above and also considering the seriousness of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Dismissed.

December 01, 2018 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2018.12.04 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document