Arjun v. State Of Haryana

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH *** CRM-M-38815 of 2021 Date of Decision: 23.9.2021 Arjun Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:

Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.

**** AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (Oral):

[1] Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court is convened through video conference.

[2] This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is filed seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 156, dated 5th April, 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (added later on), registered at Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.

[3] The F.I.R. was registered on the basis of inquiry held with regard to registration of one Ritz Car bearing registration No. HR-882310 [hereinafter referred to as 'car']. There is a chain of events co-accused were attributed various roles. Jasbir Singh purchased car in an auction held by Mahindra Finance Company. He, instead of getting the vehicle transferred in his name, sold it to Amit. Amit got vehicle registered at Charkhi Dadri. Naresh Kumar acted as a middleman for

   transaction of sale & purchase between Jasbir and Amit. As per disclosure statement of Arjun (petitioner), Amit sold the car to Rajesh, who in connivance with petitioner and Parag Kumar got it registered in the name of father of the petitioner. Pardeep Kumar working as Typist at Charkhi Dadri and Parag Kumar working as Typist at Fatehabad are alleged to have acted as conduit between the owner of car and officials of Regional Transport Office [hereinafter 'R.T.O.']. [4] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 10th May, 2021. Investigation is complete and no recovery is to be made. The case is based on documentary evidence. [5] Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that car was got transferred without getting the No Objection Certificate from Maharashtra. She submits that it was due to connivance of Pardeep Kumar and Parag Kumar with the officials of R.T.O., the car was registered in the name of father of the petitioner without complying the procedure.

[6] The fact is that investigation is complete and challan stands presented. It is not a case where the revenue of the State was affected. There are allegations with regard to non-compliance of statutory requirements which are based on documents available with the investigating agency. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. No useful purpose would be served by depriving the personal liberty of the petitioners. The petitioners are granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty

  Magistrate concerned.

[7] The petition is allowed.

[8] It is clarified that nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE 23rd September, 2021.



1. Whether speaking/ reasoned :

Yes

2. Whether reportable :

Yes