Irfan vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 12730 P&H

103
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                              CHANDIGARH

                                            CRM-M-45608-2022
                                            Date of Decision: 30.9.2022

Irfan                                                      ... Petitioner

                                       Versus

State of Haryana                                             ... Respondent

CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

Present:       Mr.Sutikshan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner

               Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana
                                 ...

The petitioner has approached this Court by filing this

petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to

him in FIR No.327 dated 1.9.2022 under Sections 379-A and 34 of the

IPC registered at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that

present case has been lodged falsely against the petitioner. The petitioner

is sought to be implicated on the basis of disclosure statement made by

some third person as per the secret information received by the police.

Learned counsel further submits that nothing is to be recovered from the

petitioner and thus no custodial interrogation is required.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the State submits the

allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The complainant

Sarupi Devi was returning to her house after taking grass, on the way

three unknown persons on a motor cycle came and they snatched her

both ear-rings and fled away on the motor cycle. Learned counsel

submits that during investigation, on 2.9.2022 on the basis of secret

information co-accused Majeet Kumar and Mohd. Jabar were arrested

and stolen ear-rings were recovered from both of them and they named

1 of 2

CRM-M-45608-2022 :2:

the petitioner in their disclosure statements. Learned counsel submits

that the petitioner was riding the motor-cycle and therefore, his custodial

interrogation is required.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the

view that the offences alleged against the petitioner are very serious in

nature. The allegations against the petitioner alongwith other co-accused

are of fleeing by motor-cycle, after snatching of earrings from a woman

going on the way. There is specific role attributed to the petitioner that

he was allegedly riding the motor-cycle. Investigation is still going on

and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for

finding out the modus operandi of commission of offence. 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.

In view of the above, the present petition being devoid of

any merit is dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an

expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

                                      (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
                                              JUDGE

30.9.2022
MFK

Whether speaking/reasoned                              Yes/No

Whether Reportable                                     Yes/No




                             2 of 2