High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Javed vs The State Of Haryana on 8 July, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Javed vs The State Of Haryana on 8 July, 2008
Crl.M.No.6959-M of 2008               -1 -


IN THE PUNJAB              AND      HARYANA         HIGH      COURT       AT
CHANDIGARH

                                      Crl.M.No.6959-M of 2008

                                      Date of Decision : 8.7.2008.

Javed
                                                   ..Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Haryana
                                                 ..Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

Present :   Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with
            Mr.Anurag Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Ms.Neena Madan, Addl.AG Haryana.

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking

regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.143 dated 2.10.2007 under

Section 395 IPC at P.S.Nagina, District Mewat.

The allegations against the petitioner are that on 1.10.2007 at

about 9.30/10 P.M. he along with some 4-5 unknown persons had

illegally/forcibly taken away truck bearing registration No.HR-46-A-8914

while in motion after stopping Tata-407 vehicle in front of the same. They

also removed Rs.15,000/- and a licence from the pocket of Shokeen,

complainant/driver of the truck and had taken away driver and conductor

after tying a strip of cloth on their eyes as well as on their hands and legs.

When on 2.10.2007, the petitioner along with complainant Jakir was taking

truck to UP for sale he was apprehended on the way as a result of which

another case was registered against them under Section 412 IPC vide FIR

No.243 at Police Station Hodal at the instance of ASI Liaqat Ali.
Crl.M.No.6959-M of 2008 -2 –

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that except

for the disclosure statement of the accused, there is nothing to connect the

petitioner with the crime under Section 395 IPC.

On the contrary, counsel for the State has submitted that truck

has been recovered from the petitioner himself. It is further submitted that

except for the petitioner, no one else has been arrested so far and the offence

that has been committed by the petitioner is serious in nature as he along

with co accused have waylaid the truck driver & conductor.

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the

merits of the case, I do not find that it is a fit case in which the petitioner

deserves to be released on bail. Therefore, the petition is hereby dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar Jain)
8.7.2008. Judge
Meenu