← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/51543/2019dismissed

Sunil v. State Of Haryana

2019-12-04Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta2 pages

CRM-M-51543-2019 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No.M-51543 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 04, 2019 Sunil ......PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

State of Haryana ....RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Anshuman Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.279 dated 06.10.2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379-B, 420, 323, 506, 511 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Sadar Tohana, District Fatehabad. Heard.

As per case of prosecution, complainant had gone to ATM of Union Bank of India, Bhuna Road, Kulan to withdraw `1,000/-. After withdrawal of that amount, three unidentified persons forcibly snatched his ATM and also tried to snatch his money by slapping and kicking him but on the Raula raised by him, Daljeet son of Sarvjeet arrived at the spot and got him relieved. When those persons were asked to hand over the ATM of complainant, they gave him another ATM. Kuldeep, co-accused was SACHIN MEHTA 2019.12.04 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

CRM-M-51543-2019 -2arrested. During investigation, he nominated the petitioner as one of his associates at the time of occurrence. After trial, he has already been convicted and sentenced.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not aware of the case and he came to know that he is required in this case only on affixation of proclamation to declare him proclaimed offender at his residence.

Keeping in view the facts of the case and that co-accused has already been convicted and custodial interrogation of petitioner is required to collect further evidence in this case, I do not find any reason to exercise the discretionary power of this Court to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

This petition has no merits. Dismissed.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) December 04, 2019 JUDGE Sachin M.

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No SACHIN MEHTA 2019.12.04 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh