High CourtsSingle Bench

Jagseer Singh vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 24 December 2020 · Citation: (2020) 12 P&H CK 0429

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajbir Sehrawat, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438, 438(2) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 379, 381, 420
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 43861 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 361 words

Rajbir Sehrawat, J

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 135 dated 16.6.2020,

registered under Sections 420, 379, 381 and 120B IPC, at Police Station Canal Colony, Bathinda, District Bathinda.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no concern with the crime alleged in this case. The complainant had not

even named the petitioner as an accused in the first instance. The name of the petitioner has been sought to be involved in the case on the basis of an

alleged disclosure statement after about 22 days of the FIR. Even as per the alleged disclosure statement, there is no specific allegation against the

petitioner except to say that the petitioner was also involved in the theft of the transformer oil along with the drivers of other vehicles. It is also

submitted that the tanker from which the transformer oil was alleged to have been stolen, is already in the custody of the police. There is no other

case against the petitioner.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Senior DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

It is submitted by the counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Lakhveer Singh, that the name of the petitioner has surfaced in the crime during

the investigation. The co-accused of the petitioner have disclosed qua specific participation of the petitioner in the crime. However, it is not disputed

that except the alleged disclosure statement, there is nothing discovered by the police even during the investigation; to show the complicity of the

petitioner in the crime. It is also not disputed that there is no other case against the petitioner.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. It is further ordered that in case of his arrest in connection of this case, the petitioner shall be

released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/sureties to satisfaction of the arresting officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and

when called by the police and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.