Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjeet vs State Of Haryana on 27 January, 2023
-1-
CRM-M-4418 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-4418 of 2023
Date of decision: 27.01.2023
Manjeet
...........Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438
Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.34 dated 18.01.2023 under
Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Pataudi, District
Gurugram.
Present FIR was got lodged by the complainant alleging that he
was working as Senior Manager in Quess Corp Limited Unitech Cyber Park
no.1504/1505,15th floor Tower B Sector 39 Gurugram and the company is
engaged in supplying staff on contract basis to Flip Cart Sampka. Every day
a number of people have been visiting the company to get employment and
the documents etc. of the said persons are checked in queue after which they
sent in the company. On 16.1.2023 complainant alongwith another official
Dharmender were checking documents of the people who had come for
employment and at about 10 a.m. petitioner-Manjeet Kumar Sharma son of
Suresh r/o Bawda Paaudi, Gurugram alongwith 3-4 more persons came and
told that trader should be removed and thereafter started giving beatings to
the complainant. While leaving, accused stated that complainant had been
1 of 3
CRM-M-4418 of 2023
spared today and next time will be eliminated. Thereafter, after some time
petitioner and 2-3 other persons came to their company and gave beatings to
employee Mitesh Yadav with dandas and ran away. On 17.1.2023 also
threats and abuses were given on phone to the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case as he is not
involved in the alleged offence. He further submits that there is no
allegation against the petitioner that he was armed with any weapon. No
grievous injury has been caused to the complainant. He further submits that
petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation.
Per contra, learned State counsel, who appears on receipt of
advance notice, opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner. She submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as he is
involved in seven more cases of similar nature.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
In para 12 of the petition, petitioner has mentioned that he is
involved in four more cases, in which he is on bail. However, learned State
counsel has pointed out that he is involved in seven more cases except the
present one. Therefore, the petitioner is a habitual offender and he has
intentionally concealed the factum of registration of all FIRs in the petition.
It is a well-settled proposition of law that a person who does not approach
the Court with clean hands and played fraud with the Court, is not entitled
for any relief. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments in
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and others - JT 2009 (15) SC 201: (2010) 2 SCC
114 and Amar Singh v. Union of India and others, WP(C) No.39/06 decided
2 of 3
CRM-M-4418 of 2023
on 11.05.2011.
As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 171,
power exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is somewhat extraordinary in
character and it is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appears
that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable
grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to
otherwise misuse his/her liberty.
There are specific allegations against the petitioner that he is
extending threats to the complainant for giving protection money. The
allegations are serious in nature. Moreover, petitioner is a habitual offender.
Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may provide information leading to
discovery of material facts. Curtailing of his freedom is necessary in order to
enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect
witnesses.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
considered view that petitioner cannot prima facie be said to have been
falsely enroped in the crime and his custodial interrogation is necessary in
the case and that petitioner is likely to abscond and misuse his liberty and
does not deserve grant of anticipatory bail.
In view of the above, the petition is dismissed.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
27.01.2023 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
