Mamman And Another vs State Of Haryana on 23 July, 2009

Crl. Misc No. M-14216 of 2009                                           1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                Crl. Misc No. M-14216 of 2009
                                Date of decision : 23.07.2009


Mamman and another
                                                          ....Petitioners

                                      V/s

State of Haryana
                                                          ....Respondent

BEFORE : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present: Mr. Jamshed Ahmad, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG Haryana.

RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)

The prayer made in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail

to the petitioners in a case registered against them under Sections

406/420/506 IPC at police station Hathin.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the

petitioners are not involved in the crime in any manner. They have been

falsely implicated in the instant case and thus entitled to the concession of

anticipatory bail.

The petition for anticipatory bail is, however, opposed by the

learned counsel for the State on the ground that custodial interrogation of

the petitioners is necessary. He has submitted that petitioners cannot claim

parity with the co-accused Ibrahim, who was granted ad-interim pre-arrest

bail by this Court as the allegation against the said accused was that he was

only present at the time of occurrence.

I have heard counsel for the parties and given careful thought to
Crl. Misc No. M-14216 of 2009 2

the facts of the case.

The allegations against the petitioners are that they borrowed

the truck of the complainant on rent/freight for one day. When the

complainant asked the petitioners to return the vehicle, they told him that

the same had been dismantled. They also threatened him with dire

consequences in case he asked for return of the truck.

In view of the fact that allegations against the petitioners are

serious in nature and vehicle in question has not been recovered till now,

there is no ground made out for extending the concession of pre-arrest bail.

Their custodial interrogation may be required to take the investigation to its

logical end.

The petition for pre-arrest bail is thus devoid of merit. The

same is hereby dismissed.

23.07.2009                                                (RAJAN GUPTA)
Ajay                                                         JUDGE