Sandeep Kumar v. State Of Haryana

  
      


CRMM479582024 Date of Decision : 24.10.2024 Sandeep Kumar .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent


   !

 
 " 

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG Haryana " # !$%&'(

1.

Apprehending arrest in FIR No.0101 dated 25.07.2024, under Sections 308(2), 109(1), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Jatusana, District Rewari, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail.

2.

Succinct factual narrative relevant for the disposal of the instant petition is that on 25.07.2024 an information was received regarding a firing incident. Police official from P.S. Jatusana reached the place of occurrence where complainant Vipul son of Inderjeet met them and gave the following written complaint :



   

 !"  

# # $ %& "' $$



$

         $  (   )  &    

# # (" !

$ "   !

)!!



 &  $ 

 " & *"" *&"'+$$" ,$  &"" *&,  



  $ $" $$ "  """$

&" $"$ -  " " "   . &$" " %&/%& "+&"0' *"*1" ,$2' ( $"

 -

* & 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he was not named in the FIR and he was nominated as an accused only in the second disclosure statement suffered by coaccused.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon status report submits that the complainant in his complaint has specifically stated that at the place of occurrence a car came from which a boy alighted who was carrying a pistol in his hand and in the statement of eye witness Ankit son of Ratan Singh recorded under Section 180 of BNSS it has been specifically stated that at the place

) of occurrence one white color Maruti Brezza car came from which a boy alighted who disclosed his name as Nakshu and pulled out his pistol, thereafter in the disclosure statement dated 26.07.2024 of both the aforesaid accused persons they have specifically disclosed that the aforesaid Maruti Brezza car bearing по. HR36AR7807 belonged to their friend Sandeep @ Monu (petitioner herein), thereafter the vehicle particulars/details were obtained from the state transport department which clearly shows that the aforesaid vehicle is registered in the name of father of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was duly involved in the present offence and his role is yet to be investigated and the aforesaid car is yet to be recovered. He further submits that the accused Sandeep Kumar son of Ajaypal the petitioner herein is yet to be arrested.

In the disclosure statement of coaccused Nakshtra @ Nakshu and Amit, they have named the petitioner and attributed specific role to the petitioner. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has not joined the investigation till date. The investigating team has visited his house multiple times but he is yet to be found. The investigation in the present case is still undergoing qua the petitioner and car used in the present offence is yet to be recovered.

5.

Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.

There are serious allegations leveled against the petitioner. There are specific allegations in the complaint, in statement of eye witness Ankit son of Ratan Singh in relation to the car used in the offence and the role and involvement of the present petitioner accused Sandeep Kumar has surfaced in the disclosure statements of the both the aforesaid coaccused which transpires that the present petitioner conspired with other coaccused and committed the serious offence

which creates fear in mind of public at large. Accordingly, to unearth the true dimension of the alleged crime, this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere in the matter so as to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7.

The petition is dismissed.

$" (

!

!



reena 4&$5675% 4 675%