Vijay Kumar Alias Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:-2.12.2024 Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Sharma ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. G.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab.

***** FIR No.

Dated Police Station Section/s 17.6.2024 Focal Point, District Ludhiana, Punjab 379 & 120-B of Indian Penal Code GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

This is the second petition filing on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of the aforementioned FIR. The order passed in the first petition is reproduced herein-under: "Today, at the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to surrender before the trial Court and to apply for grant of regular bail.

In view of the aforesaid submission, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

In case, the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court within a period of 10 days from today and applies for grant of regular bail, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the same expeditiously preferably within 3 days from filing of such application."

( 2 ) 2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Vagish Gupta, wherein it is alleged that he is proprietor of 'Bansal International Factory, Focal Point Ludhiana' and used to procure steel rods from 'M.S. Transport Service, Mandi Gobindgarh'. It is alleged that he had been observing that some losses were being incurred and the complainant realized that the steel rods being received by him were underweight and, as such, he started keeping a check upon the consignments received. It is alleged that on 16.6.2024 when a consignment was on its way to his premises, it was noticed that at a short distance from the premises of the complainant, some persons were taking out two weights of 50 kilograms each from "Chota Hathi" bearing registration No.PB-11-CZ-1584. However, upon noticing the complainant they ran away from the spot.

Upon weighment, it was found that the steel loaded in the Chota Hathi was deficient by 1 quintal. It is thus the case of the complainant that steel rods weighing about 1 quintal had been removed from the consignment and that two weights weighing 50 kilograms each had been put in "Chota Hathi", so that the deficiency of weight is not found at the weighing scale. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since other co-accused namely Surjeet Singh, Avdhesh Kumar and Gurjant had been granted anticipatory bail, the petitioner also deserves the same concession. 4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that since the petitioner happens to be involved in two other cases of identical nature for offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, it is apparent that the petitioner is frequently indulging into such like cases and that, as such, his custodial interrogation would be required to unearth all the finer details and

( 3 ) the modus operandi and also as to on how many other occasions such like offences had been committed.

5.

This Court has considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned State counsel and bearing in mind that the petitioner is repeatedly indulging in similar offences, this Court does not find any special case for grant of anticipatory bail. The instant petition, as such, is dismissed. 2.12.2024 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No