← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/28299/2020allowed

Pardeep Singh v. State Of Haryana

2021-09-09Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:09.09.2021

1. CRM-M No.28299 of 2020(O&M) Pardeep Singh ......Petitioner Vs State of Haryana .....Respondent

2. CRM-M No.8880 of 2021(O&M) Dinesh Kumar ......Petitioner Vs State of Haryana .....Respondent

3. CRM-M No.22745 of 2021(O&M) Parveen @ Sanjay ......Petitioner Vs State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present:Mr. K.D. Sehra, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M No.28299 of 2020. Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8880 of 2021.

Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M No.22745 of 2021. Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana.

**** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)

The cases have been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

Vide this common order, CRM-M No.28299 of 2020 titled Pardeep Singh Vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M No.8880 of 2021 titled Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and CRM-M No.22745 of 2021 titled Parveen @ Sanjay Vs. State of Haryana are being disposed of. Common facts are being noticed. Petitioners in all the three petitions seek grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.541 dated 04.08.2020 registered under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467 and 471 IPC at Police Station City Sonepat, District Sonepat.

The allegations are of investing the money in preparation of transactions involving preparation of fake chassis number and registration number of 100% damaged vehicles in connivance with Naveen @ Sonu, Ikrar and other persons of the Insurance Company.

Learned counsel for petitioner Pardeep Singh submits that the petitioner himself is a victim of fraud as he had purchased Endeavour car for a consideration of Rs.17.5 lacs and the documents were not handed over to him by accused Naveen @ Sonu. Naveen @ Sonu has been granted regular bail by the High Court vide order dated 27.01.2021 passed in

CRM-M No.2851 of 2021. The car purchased by the petitioner was apprehended by the police on 04.08.2020 and the same was found to be a stolen vehicle, for which, the original owner had registered criminal case i.e. FIR No.117 dated 16.02.2019under Sections 392/34 IPC in Police Station Basant Vihar, Delhi. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not invested any money in the transaction of preparing forged documents by Naveen @ Sonu and Ikrar in any manner. The police has recovered 7 vehicles from Naveen @ Sonu, which were sold with fake chassis number and engine number with the help of forged documents. Learned counsel further submits that Naveen @ Sonu was granted regular bail and the police must have recovered the incriminating material from him.

Learned counsel for petitioner Parveen @ Sanjay submits that petitioner Parveen @ Sanjay is a clerk in the office of registration authority, Uchana and he has nothing to do with the transaction involving the main accused Naveen @ Sonu and Ikrar for selling the vehicle with forged documentation. Learned counsel for petitioner Dinesh Kumar submits that petitioner Dinesh Kumar happens to be the brother of Naveen @ Sonu and is not related to the transaction in any manner.

regular bail vide order dated 27.01.2021 passed in CRM-M No.2851 of 2021. Learned counsel has refuted the allegations of not joining the investigation, despite issuance of notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C.

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Sandeep submits that though the petitioners have joined the investigation, but they have not facilitated the recovery of amount and involvement of other co-accused.

Since the main accused has been granted regular bail after recovery of vehicles from him, therefore, the complicity of the petitioners would remain debatable.

In view of aforesaid position, it would be just and appropriate to confirm the interim orders dated 28.06.2021 for joining the investigation by the petitioners. Petitioners shall keep on joining the investigation as and when required to do so and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

All the petitions stand disposed of.

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) 09.09.2021 JUDGE Prince Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No