Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1011 (PNJ)

Mukesh v. State of Haryana

2010-02-25

S.S.SARON

body2010
JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 7.10.2009 which was registered initially for the offences under Sections 420 and 380 IPC and later the offences under Sections 328, 392 and 34 IPC were added. 3. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Sanjay Goyal. It is alleged by the complainant that on 6.10.2009 the complainant was returning from his office and he reached Ballabgarh Bus Stand at 10.300 p.m. As he could not find a bus, he took a lift in a black colour Esteem car No.HR-51-N-. This he did on the request of the driver of the car so that he could reach home immediately. In the said car apart from the driver there was another co-passenger. On crossing the Ballabgarh flyover, the driver expressed a desire to have drinks which, however, the complainant refused. The driver and the co-passenger had drinks while they insisted that the complainant have a sip of Mirinda (cold drink) in a cap. The complainant accepted the request and had one cap of soft drink. After this the complainant was all right till they reached Prithala Village but after that he did not know what had happened to him as he lost consciousness. In the morning at about 6.00 a.m. he regained some consciousness and he found himself lying in the field. By making some efforts he reached the road and he came to know that he was in the area of Kuslipur. With the help of local residents he was able to reach Hodal. In this entire incident the complainant found that his following articles were not with him which the car driver by deceit had taken:- (1) Laptop (2) Mobile (Nokia-650 Series) (3) (Mobile (MTS Samsung) (4) Mobile (Haier) (5) Internet data Card X-3 Nos. MOS (6) Sudexo pass (7) Cash Rs.1200/- (8) Identity card of the company (9) Visiting cards (Nos.200). 4. It was requested that FIR be registered. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no allegation in the FIR against the petitioner. The petitioner along with two other co-accused, namely, Amarjit and Vinod were arrested in the above noted case. 4. It was requested that FIR be registered. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no allegation in the FIR against the petitioner. The petitioner along with two other co-accused, namely, Amarjit and Vinod were arrested in the above noted case. The petitioner was named as an accused on the disclosure statement of a co-accused which was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Besides, it is submitted that in the case instead of recovering the black colour Esteem car in which the complainant is stated to have taken a lift, an Indica car was recovered vide DD No.14-A dated 26.10.2009. Moreover, Amarjit, co-accused of the petitioner has been granted the concession of bail by the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad. 6. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence is evident and no ground is made out for grant of bail. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that Amarjit Singh, co-accused of the petitioner has been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 15.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. A perusal of the said order shows that as per prosecution on the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant FIR was registered. During investigation a supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded in which it was alleged that they were four persons including the driver in the car and they had disclosed their names. On 26.10.2009, Mukesh (petitioner), Amar Nath and Vinod were arrested by the Special Staff of South Delhi Police and from their custody Laptop and two mobile phones were recovered. In the presence of the Delhi Police the said persons named Amarjit (who has been granted bail). The third mobile was in his possession. Amarjit was arrested on 16.11.2009 and he suffered a disclosure statement wherein he disclosed that he had sold the mobile phone to Raju alias Kharbuja. The latter is yet to be arrested. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 15.12.2009 observed that in terms of the supplementary statement the scope of investigation had been expanded to such an extent that instead of two persons, four persons have been shown involved in the commission of offence. Besides, there was no legally admissible evidence against Amarjit Singh. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 15.12.2009 observed that in terms of the supplementary statement the scope of investigation had been expanded to such an extent that instead of two persons, four persons have been shown involved in the commission of offence. Besides, there was no legally admissible evidence against Amarjit Singh. Moreover, nothing was to be recovered from him. 9. It may be noticed that the petitioner-Mukesh is in custody since 26.10.2009 when he was arrested by the Delhi Police. The incident in the present case is of 6.10.2009. The recovery has been made from the petitioner and he is no longer required for the purposes of investigation. Apart from the supplementary statement of the complainant-Sanjay Goyal, the police papers show that in terms of DD No.14-A dated 26.10.2009 one Indica car No.HR-51T-1839 was stopped in the presence of witnesses on the Mehrauli Badarpur road in which three persons were found sitting and the diver of the said vehicle was Mukesh (petitioner) and on the seat besides him Amar Nath alias Amar was sitting and the person sitting on the rear seat was Vinod Kumar. As per ‘Farad Jama Talashi’ dated 27.10.2009 on the search of the petitioner as also Vinod and Amar Nath nothing was recovered. The prosecution is to establish its case after leading evidence. The trial in the case would take time. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner is admitted to bail. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad shall be admitted to bail. -----------------------