Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Bittu @ Shankar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-7447 of 2021
Decided On : 24-02-2021
Bail - Snatching - The court dismissed the petition seeking regular bail in a case involving snatching of a car at gunpoint, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the recovery of the snatched car at the instance of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving snatching of a car at gunpoint. The petitioner had been in custody since 17.10.2018, and the investigation was complete with the challan produced.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations, the recovery of the snatched car at the instance of the petitioner, and the fact that the complainant was yet to be examined.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's custody, identification by witnesses, and the seriousness of the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the mere period of custody would not be a ground to grant bail, especially in a case involving snatching of a car at gunpoint, and highlighted the recovery of the snatched car at the instance of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition seeking regular bail was dismissed, with a clarification that the dismissal should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT :
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.
2. This is a petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 413 dated 29.9.2018 under Sections 25 of Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 201/34, 392, 417, 216 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad.
3. The FIR was the behest of Udeek Singh. The allegations were that on 29.9.2018 at about 7:40 p.m. his car bearing registration No.PB-31-K-4358 was stopped by two boys. On refusal to give them lift, car was snatched at gun point. It was alleged that mobile was also there in the car.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2018, investigation is complete and challan has been produced. It is further submitted that disclosure statement was taken when petitioner was already in custody in some other case. The contention is that two eye witnesses have not identified the petitioner.
5. Learned State counsel states that the petitioner has been duly identified by the complainant and the snatched car was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The contention is that petitioner is a habitual offender.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner rebutted the arguments of habitual offender and submits that the petitioner was acquitted in three cases.
7. The present case is not a case based on disclosure statement only. There was recovery of the snatched car at the instance of petitioner.
8. The allegations against the petitioner are serious. The complainant is yet to be examined. Mere period of custody itself would not be a ground to grant bail. Moreover, this is a case of snatching of car at gun point.
9. The petition is dismissed accordingly.
10. However, it is clarified that anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
