IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.
Misc.
not M-39311 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:
06. 02.2013 Skattar Singh @ Satto & Anr..Petitioners versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr.L.M.Gulati, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Deep Singh, AAG Punjab.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL) Skattar Singh @ Satto and Surjit Singh, the petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.132 dated 30.9.2012 at Police Station Chattiwind, District Amritsar, for an offence punishable under sections 379 and 411 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been involved in pursuance of a secret information to the effect that a group of persons consisting of Gurpreet Singh, Skattar Singh and Surjit Singh is in the habit of stealing vehicles from Bombay and sell them in Amritsar.
According to him, a Mahindra XUV 50.was stated by the informer to have been stolen from Bombay and was said to be lying in accidental condition with the petitioners and Gurpreet Singh for which they were said to be seeking some customer.
He further submits that the vehicle already stood recovered from the possession of Gurpreet Singh who has been arrested in this case.
Crl.
Misc.
not M-39311 of 2012 =2= Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that 15 days earlier, the petitioners were arrested by the police of Chattiwind Police Station in an NDPS Act case in which the petitioners had a quarrel with the SHO of the police station and in order to take revenge upon the petitioneRs.they have been falsely involved in this case.
He further submits that the petitioners have joined the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required in this case.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioners and they are required to be interrogated in custody so as to find out about other vehicles stolen by them.
Looking to the sequence of events, in which the petitioners were involved in NDPS Act case about 15 days earlier and their involvement on the basis of secret information regarding the vehicle which already stands recovered from the possession of Gurpreet Singh, I find that their joining the investigation is sufficient for giving opportunity to the police to investigate the case.
No recovery is to be effected in this case.
Keeping in view all these circumstances, I find the petitioners to be entitled to pre-arrest bail.
Consequently, the petition is allowed and order dated 12.12.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners is made absolute.
February 06,2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE