Ramvir @ Rambir v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-35397-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision:-31.8.2021 Ramvir @ Rambir ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Vikram Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana.

(proceedings conducted through video conferencing) ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.452 dated 14.6.1998 at Police Station City Panipat under Sections 379 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. 2.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Vir Singh, wherein it is alleged that some unknown persons had stolen iron rods and cement from a store where he was employed as a chowkidar. It is the case of prosecution that subsequently Mange Ram, Gurdyal and Mazhar Khan, who were in custody in connection with some other case, admitted their guilt and also suffered a disclosure statement nominating the petitioner as their accomplice. PANKAJ KAKKAR 2021.08.31 20:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-35397-2021 (O&M) 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been nominated solely on the basis of a disclosure statement and that there is no credible evidence against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that while the FIR was lodged in the year 1998, the police is now intending to arrest the petitioner and that he had no knowledge whatsoever even about the registration of the case or as regards his involvement. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.

The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender way back in the year 1999 necessarily indicating that he had been evading his arrest. 6.

Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner particularly the fact that he had been declared a proclaimed offender and also the ratio of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma, 2014(2) SCC 171 and Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2012(8) SCC 730, wherein it has been held that a proclaimed offencer should not be granted anticipatory bail, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail. The petition is sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

31.8.2021 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2021.08.31 20:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document