Harwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

 


 


 

  
   


!

"#$#%&
 ( )* +,

 

    





   &
 -.
/0
/ 


/
      
 


   

 
   !



"

#
 $$$ 

/
,

1.2&
  
 

 
& 
'

  
 

&
&


()
"  
 &* ()
+ , 
&


 13.05.2024 Moti Nagar, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana 408, 120-B of IPC (Sections 420, 465, 467, 471,411 and 201 of IPC added later on) - . 




 & 




&
 
 

 

/0
"&


  
  " 
 

&
&&  
 




  


"

'&

+ 
4& 
#
5 
6


 

07 -82

 

& 


 

  
+
.*/1*99*88-2



 

07 /:1

  & 


 
 
" 
.*/1*9;*::-2
"
 

5* 



  
  * 

   &'
 

 


 

)

   

 
;  
)
<

4  

9""
= 4 "
%
"&

> 
"

 


 & '





 
" 
 
 & '

 
   )

 
&& 
'

"&

   
  



# 

18 -1-3

 







"& 
& 
%   

"&
   

 &  
" 
"
 
;  

)
<


 
 
 

 & '

  "'



 
  
)

&
" 
 



  
"&'




"'


'

%
"& "



  

 


 


 


 
  
" 


 & 


  
 

()
  
    
 
%
  

  

/3  
"&  
  '
  

&
"&  &&

   



5

17 -1-3

  &'

  
&

* 
 
&

""

 
"  
  


" 
&
 

&  
&
5



 &
&



"

 
"  
 
 
/7 1:

  
 

 
& 
'

  



3





  
'

 &
 

 
& &'
"& 
 


 
 





 &


"&


& 
" &


 




"&

&&
  '
" 

 

&





 
 
;  
)
< 
 
 
 
'
"



"&
+




 
" 
'
"

)
 &'



"&
 

& 
"
& 
 9""


& 

"


# 



   

 
 

"&



'
 /3
)  

 
"&  
%&

& &'


"

+
 &

&

  
'
  "

'
'"
 
  


 
"

 
"

5* 
%

"

 
?  
  

'
&
%  



 
   


&&  5.

Status report has been filed by respondent-State. It is argued by learned State counsel that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He along with the co-accused Harjeet Singh had loaded 39.170 tons of iron rods on truck bearing No. .*/1*9;*::-2 and truck driven by the coaccused which was bearing No. .*/1*99*88-2
)
  with the coaccused Harjit, he had sold the material loaded in the truck to the co-accused Rahul Rana, Mohan Katwal, Lokesh Rana and Vikas Kumar and had misappropriated the amount received from the sale of those iron rods. The bail petition of the co-accused Harjit Singh had been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2024 in CRM-M-41282-2024. There are chances of

 his absconding or influencing the witnesses, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

7.

The bail petition of the co-accused Harjit Singh has already been dismissed on 27.09.2024. As per the allegations, on 03.04.2024, the complainant had loaded iron rods weighing 39.285 kgs. and 39.170 kgs. in his two trucks at his transport for the purpose of delivering the same to Mega Engineering Infrastructure Ltd. at Kathua, State of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner was driver on one of the said trucks. However, the consignment was not delivered at the consignee firm. Later on, it was found that some employees of the consignee firm, in connivance with the petitioner and another driver of the complainant, had criminally misappropriated the iron rods. The allegations against the petitioner are serious and specific in nature.

The apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that if extended benefit of bail, the petitioner may abscond or influence the witnesses cannot be stated to be unfounded. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that co-accused Tarun Sharma has been granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court is concerned, he was neither an employee of the complainant nor the consignee firm and was not entrusted with any property belonging to the complainant.

4 the co-accused thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- to the complainant. The complainant is yet to be examined. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 8.

)
 
& 

  
"
 

 &&


 


? 




" 


 9.



"
 

 
" 
 
&


'


   












5

/
6


 ( )* +,