Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Kumar Alias Sunny vs State Of Haryana on 12 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
207
CRM-M-49753-2022
Date of decision : 12.12.2022
Sunil Kumar @ Sunny .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA
Present: - Mr. K.L. Saini, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Munish Sharma, Asstt. A.G., Haryana
for the respondent-State.
ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory
bail in case FIR No.512 dated 23.09.2022 registered under Sections
323, 341, 379-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police
Station Narnaud, Hisar.
The above-said FIR was registered on the complaint made
by complainant-Rajiv Kumar alleging that on 22.09.2022 at around
9/10:00 p.m. he had gone to drop the labourer working at this house. At
about 10:20 p.m. when he returning back, near Bus Stand of Rakhi
Shahpur, 4/5 boys stopped him. They caused injuries to him on his both
legs and hands and snatched Rs.2,000/- from his pocket and his mobile
phone.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. No injury has
1 of 3
been attributed to the petitioner and all the injuries on the person of
complainant were simple in nature. The petitioner and the complainant
belongs to the same village and because of the upcoming panchayat
election, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner. Nothing
has to be recovered from the petitioner and his custodial interrogation
are not required in the case. The petitioners is also ready and willing to
join investigation.
Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present
petition on the ground that the petitioner along with other co-accused
snatched amount of Rs.2,000/- and a mobile phone from the
complainant. The petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. The
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for thorough
investigation of the case and for recovery of amount of Rs.2,000/- and a
mobile phone of the complainant.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the paper-book.
The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.
The recovery of snatched amount of Rs.2,000/- and mobile phone is yet
to be effected. Moreover, the investigation is still going on, therefore,
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.
It is settled proposition of law that power exercisable under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is somewhat extraordinary in character and it
is to be exercised in exceptional cases. This view of mine finds support
from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171.
2 of 3
Keeping in view the above facts as well as nature of the
offences, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory
bail. Hence, the present petitions are hereby dismissed.
12.12.2022 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
