Dilip Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2023:PHHC:089430 CRM-M-33989-2023 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33989-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.07.2023 Dilip Kumar ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT Present :

Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present first petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.422 dated 14.10.2022 registered under Sections 380, 454, 401, 411, 413, 420, 468, 471, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Urban Estate, District Rohtak.

2.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is totally false, frivolous and concocted. The petitioner is not involved in any crime as is alleged against him in the present case. Even as per the allegations levelled by the prosecution, the petitioner is not involved in the theft and the allegation against him is only qua receiving the stolen property. Even the value of the alleged stolen property is very small. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and to cooperate with the Investigating Officer as and when called by the police. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2023.07.19 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

2023:PHHC:089430 CRM-M-33989-2023 (O&M) -23.

Notice of motion.

4.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. K.K.Chahal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposed the petition.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the basis of written instructions supplemented with telephonic conversation with SI Manoj Kumar, has submitted that the petitioner is habitual of committing similar crime. As per the written instructions, the petitioner is involved in ten more cases on similar nature. The custody of the petitioner is required to unearth the dimensions of involvement of the petitioner. 6.

In view of the above, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.

Dismissed.

(RAJBIR SEHRAWAT) JUDGE 17.07.2023 adhikari Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2023.07.19 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh