Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Shanu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM M No. 30738 of 2021
Decided On : 10-08-2021
Regular Bail - Criminal Law - The court dismissed the petition seeking regular bail for the petitioner who was involved in a case of snatching a vehicle at gunpoint. The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the recovery of the snatched vehicle and a country-made pistol from the petitioner, and his involvement in other criminal cases as sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving the snatching of a vehicle at gunpoint. The petitioner was not named in the FIR, and there was no CCTV footage or identification parade conducted. However, the recovery of the snatched vehicle and a country-made pistol from the petitioner, along with his involvement in other criminal cases, were key points of contention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seriousness of the allegations, the recovery of the snatched vehicle and a country-made pistol from the petitioner, and his involvement in other criminal cases were sufficient grounds to deny bail. The court emphasized that the mere period of custody and lack of identification in the FIR were not enough to grant bail.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the seriousness of the allegations, the recovery of the snatched vehicle and a country-made pistol from the petitioner, and his involvement in other criminal cases, in determining the eligibility for bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the recovery of the snatched vehicle and a country-made pistol from the petitioner, along with his involvement in other criminal cases, as sufficient grounds to deny bail, emphasizing that the mere period of custody and lack of identification in the FIR were not enough to grant bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition seeking regular bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations, the recovery of the snatched vehicle and a country-made pistol from the petitioner, and his involvement in other criminal cases as sufficient grounds to deny bail.
JUDGMENT
Avneesh Jhingan, J. - The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.
2. This is a petition seeking regular bail in case of FIR No. 1177 dated 8.12.2018, under Sections 395, 397, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Gurugram, District Gurugram.
3. A complaint was received from Ravinder Kumar Sharma. As per the contents on 8.12.2019, at around 12:30 AM while travelling in his car bearing registration No.HR-26EE-0990, he stopped on the way for having tea. A swift desire car having four occupants came there, two persons alighted from the car, one pointed pistol on chest of complainant and the other one snatched the keys of the car and they fled away. His laptop and documents were also lying in the car. During investigation of FIR No. 2401 dated 14.12.2019, Sunny @ Kutru, Sanu, Dalip @ Kali, Bhagti Lamba @ Nepali were arrested and from them snatched vehicle of complainant, one country made pistol and one live cartridge were recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. There is no CCTV footage. No identification parade was got conducted. Learned counsel further argued that two co-accused Neeraj and Sunil have been granted bail.
5. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail. She submits that the recovery of snatched vehicle and country made pistol was made from the petitioner. There is involvement of petitioner in four more cases i.e. two under Section 379 IPC, one under Section 307 IPC and one under Section 148, 149, 506 and Arms Act. She contends that the petitioner is not at parity with co-accused who have been granted bail. There was no recovery made from the co-accused.
6. The allegations against the petitioner are serious. The fact that he has not been identified or not named in the FIR does not enhance the case of the petitioner for grant of bail. Recovery of snatched vehicle from the accused without there being any explanation as to how he was in possession of the same, at this stage, is sufficient. Mere period of custody in itself is not enough for grant of bail. Involvement of petitioner in other FIR is an indicator of his antecedents.
7. No ground is made out for grant of bail.
8. Dismissed.
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
