Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kodan Advocate Vs. Paramjit @ Parma ….Petitioner - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1154936
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-08-2014
AppellantPresent: Mr. Sanjeev Kodan Advocate
RespondentParamjit @ Parma ….Petitioner
Excerpt:
kanchan cr.misc.-m-18012 of 2014 2014.07.10112:21 233 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cr.misc.-m-18012 of 2014 date of decision: 08.07.2014. paramjit @ parma ….petitioner versus state of haryana ….respondent coram: hon’ble mr.justice tejinder singh dhindsa. present: mr.sanjeev kodan, advocate for the petitioner. mr.vikas malik, aag, haryana. ***** tejinder singh dhindsa j. (oral) the petitioner seeks the benefit of regular bail in case fir no.23 dated 16.01.2013 filed under sections 392, 412, 34 of ipc and sections 25, 54 and 59 of arms act registered at police station sadar dadri, district bhiwani. the fir in question was registered on the statement of rakesh upon the allegations that on 15.01.2013 his vehicle dumper bearing registration no.hr-67-6372 was snatched and stolen. during the cours.of arguments, the facts that have been emerged up are that a separate fir no.144 dated 27.05.2013 under sections, 307, 186, 153 of ipc and section 25 of the arms act was registered at police station city gohana and in which one shamsher was named as an accused. such accused, shamsher gave a disclosure statement with regard to the vehicle in question having been snatched by sunil @ sheelu and satpal. cr.misc.-m-18012 of 2014 2 the present petitioner has been implicated on the further disclosure statement of sunil @ sheelu who is stated to have sold the vehicle in question to the present petitioner for consideration of rs.2,50,000/-. the petitioner was arrested on 20.04.2014 and it is stated that even his disclosure statement was recorded in which he has stated to have sold the vehicle further to one rakesh and a sum of rs.15,000/- has been recovered from his residence. investigation in the present case is complete and the challan qua the present petitioner was presented on 17.06.2014. learned state counsel would concede to the fact that the vehicle alleged to have been stolen and thereafter having been allegedly sold to the present petitioner has not been recovered. without making any observations on the merits of the case, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail. petition allowed. bail to the satisfaction of trial court. disposed of. (tejinder singh dhindsa) judge0807.2014. my
Judgment:

Kanchan Cr.Misc.-M-18012 of 2014 2014.07.10112:21 233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Misc.-M-18012 of 2014 Date of decision: 08.07.2014.

Paramjit @ Parma ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

Present: Mr.Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Vikas Malik, AAG, Haryana.

***** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA J.

(Oral) The petitioner seeks the benefit of regular bail in case FIR No.23 dated 16.01.2013 filed under Sections 392, 412, 34 of IPC and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Sadar Dadri, District Bhiwani.

The FIR in question was registered on the statement of Rakesh upon the allegations that on 15.01.2013 his vehicle Dumper bearing registration No.HR-67-6372 was snatched and stolen.

During the couRs.of arguments, the facts that have been emerged up are that a separate FIR No.144 dated 27.05.2013 under sections, 307, 186, 153 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered at Police Station City Gohana and in which one Shamsher was named as an accused.

Such accused, Shamsher gave a disclosure statement with regard to the vehicle in question having been snatched by Sunil @ Sheelu and Satpal.

Cr.Misc.-M-18012 of 2014 2 The present petitioner has been implicated on the further disclosure statement of Sunil @ Sheelu who is stated to have sold the vehicle in question to the present petitioner for consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-.

The petitioner was arrested on 20.04.2014 and it is stated that even his disclosure statement was recorded in which he has stated to have sold the vehicle further to one Rakesh and a sum of Rs.15,000/- has been recovered from his residence.

Investigation in the present case is complete and the challan qua the present petitioner was presented on 17.06.2014.

Learned State Counsel would concede to the fact that the vehicle alleged to have been stolen and thereafter having been allegedly sold to the present petitioner has not been recovered.

Without making any observations on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail.

Petition allowed.

Bail to the satisfaction of trial Court.

Disposed of.

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE0807.2014.

MY