High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/6716/2017allowed

Mustakeem v. State Of Haryana

2017-08-16Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-6716 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 16, 2017 Mustakeem

...Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Gautum Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.D.R.Singla, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana 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.41 dated 01.02.2017 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Hathin, District Palwal.

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. As per the prosecution version, on the checking of ration card and tallying of Shell Register and Stock Register, it has been found that entries have not been made by the Depot holder Mustkeem and entry has Vineet Gulati 2017.08.17 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-6716 of 2017 -2been shown in Shell Register but no signatures of anyone are available and only thumb impressions have been affixed. 10 B.P.L. Cards and 6 A.A.Y. Cards were taken into custody. It is the allegation that in the Stock Register, which has been shown, the stock for 11/2016 and 12/2016 is NIL and has not been distributed amongst the poor. The petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is not required for custodial interrogation. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody.

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 find it a fit case, where the petitioner is entitled to benefit of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present petition is accepted and the order dated 01.03.2017 granting interim bail to petitioner, is made absolute. August 16, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.08.