Jeevan Kumar alias Bhola vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Having exercised his right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Petitioner Jeevan

Kumar alias Bhola s/o Surender Kumar, has directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No. 67

dated 22.5.2009 (Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable u/s 379 IPC by the police of Police Station Sector

40, Gurgaon, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.PC.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the

entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect.

What is not disputed here is that complainant Om Parkash lodged a report of theft of his TATA Safari vehicle with the police of Police Station

Sector 40, Gurgaon, which formed the basis of instant FIR/case. The same very car was subsequently recovered from the Petitioner at Bathinda.

The police of Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda has already registered a criminal case against him, vide FIR No. 619 dated 26.8.2009 (Annexure

P-2) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Whether the two criminal

prosecution can be initiated against the Petitioner for the same offence u/s 379 IPC, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of

trial of the case. It is not a matter of dispute that this Court, vide order dated 23.9.2010 (Annexure P-5) has stayed the proceedings with regard to

the second FIR. Moreover, the learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Anil Kumar, has submitted that the Petitioner has already joined the

investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. The offence alleged against the Petitioner is triable by the Court of

Magistrate.

So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without

commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the present Petitioner is

entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case.

Consequently, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the Petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail and surety

bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) he shall make himself available for

interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to

any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) he

will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

Needless to mention that in case, the Petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an

application for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant connection.