Aamin @ Yamin vs State of Haryana

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions bearing Crl.M. Nos. 29533 and 32361 of 2010, filed by Petitioners u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No. 24, dated 28.10.2009, under Sections 379, 188, 120B IPC, and 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, registered at Police Station SVB, District Gurgaon.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

This Court while issuing notice of motion in Crl.M. No. M-29533 of 2010, passed the following order on 12.10.2010:

Criminal Misc. No. 54288 of 2010

Requests for placing on record copy of police report (Annexure P-3).

Application is allowed and the police report (Annexure P-3 is taken on record.

Criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of.

Criminal Misc. No. M-29533 of 2010

Argues that name of the Petitioner has not been mentioned in the FIR. Further contended that Petitioner is neither owner of any truck, in which stones allegedly extracted by illegal mining were being carried nor he is owner of stone crusher, where the same were taken for crushing. Further contended that he has been falsely implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement of Veeru & Bir Singh, who has already been granted regular bail. Further contended that similarly placed co-accused namely Bhupinder Singh, Rajinder Singh, Amit, Hitesh and Rajesh Yadav have already been granted anticipatory bail.

Notice of motion for 8.11.2010.

However, in the meantime, Petitioner is directed to join investigation and in case of arrest, he be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer subject to compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Code of Criminal Procedure.

This Court while issuing notice of motion in Crl.M. No. M-32361 of 2010, passed the following order on 2.11.2010:

Argues that name of the Petitioner has not been mentioned in the FIR. Further contended that Petitioner is neither owner of any truck, in which stones allegedly extracted by illegal mining were being carried nor he is owner of stone crusher, where the same were taken for crushing. Further contended that he has been falsely implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement of Veeru @ Bir Singh, who has already been granted regular bail. Further contended that similarly placed co-accused namely, Bhupinder Singh, Rajinder Singh, Amit, Hitesh and Rajesh Yadav have already been granted anticipatory bail.

Notice of motion for 8.11.2010.

However, in the meantime, Petitioner is directed to join investigation and in case of arrest, he be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer subject to compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Code of Criminal Procedure.

To be heard alongwith Criminal Misc. No. M-29533 of 2010.

It has been stated by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that pursuant to the said orders, the Petitioners have already joined the investigation.

It has been stated by learned State Counsel as well that the Petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that Petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, orders dated 12.10.2010 and 2.11.2010, granting interim bail to Petitioners-Aamin @ Yamin and Abdul Rajak, are, hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Code of Criminal Procedure.

Both the petitions stand of accordingly.