Pawan Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2023: PHHC:106600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-35195-2023 Date of Decision:17.08.2023 Pawan Kumar . . . . Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana . . . . Respondent **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Randeep S. Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.P.K. Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Status report by way of affidavit of Sh. Aman Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, STF Unit, District Ambala, on behalf of the State/respondent is filed today in Court and the same is taken on record. By way of this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.330 dated 23.05.2023 registered at Police Station Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra under Sections 25, 25(6) of the Arms Act, 1959. 2.

As per allegations, secret information was received on 23.05.2023 against co-accused Vicky Garg @ Lala, an affiliate of Bishnoi Gang and involved in various cases to the effect that on that day, he was carrying large quantity of illegal arms and ammunitions and was awaiting the arrival of one of his associates. Raid was conducted. Said Vicky Garg @ Lala was apprehended and from his possession, 4 country made pistols, 2 country made kattas and 14 live cartridges were recovered without any license. During interrogation, said co-accused Vicky Garg @ Lala disclosed VIVEK PAHWA 2023.08.18 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-35195-2023 2023: PHHC:106600 that he along with present petitioner Pawan Kumar and Vishal had gone to Gorakhpur for purchase of illegal weapons in Honda City Car and had taken 6 country made pistols, 2 desi kattas and 21 live cartridges from Manish Yadav of Gorakhpur.

3.

It is contended by ld. Counsel that no recovery was effected from the petitioner; that whatever recovery of arms and ammunitions is there; that has been effected from co-accused; that petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the basis of disclosed statement; that petitioner is ready to join investigation and so, he be allowed anticipatory bail. 4.

Strongly opposing the bail petition, ld. State counsel not only pointed out towards the nature of allegations against the petitioner, but also the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, inasmuch as he is involved in 5 other criminal cases and is member of Lawrence Bishnoi Gang. Ld. State counsel further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required having regard to the disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused to the effect that petitioner had accompanied him for purchasing the illegal arms and ammunitions.

5.

After hearing both the sides and having regard to the nature of allegations against the petitioner, but without commenting anything further on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Dismissed.

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 17.08.2023

 

  
         VIVEK PAHWA 2023.08.18 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document