Rakesh Kochar vs State of Haryana

Jaswant Singh, J.—Prayer u/s 438 Cr.P.C is for grant of anticipatory/pre arrest bail in case FIR No. 646 dated 28.9.2010 under Sections 148/149/452/323/382 IPC, P.S City Sirsa.

It is averred that a plot adjacent to that of complainant-Hanuman Singh was purchased by one Devi Lal from the owner-Harbans Lal vide registered sale deed dated 22.9.2010. Part of that plot is alleged to have been encroached upon by the neighbour-Hanuman Singh/complainant.

As per allegations of the prosecution, about 15 persons including the Petitioner-Rakesh Kochar on 28.9.2010 at around 10.00 p.m had proceeded to the plot to remove the encroachment made by the complainant. They are alleged to have broken the wall and also abused the women of the house. Petitioner-Rakesh Kochar has been specifically named to be accompanying the assailants in his car wherein the weapons were stored.

Learned Counsel submits that the Petitioner, who is an Ex-Councillor has been falsely implicated because he was part of the panchayat, who had tried to settle the dispute of encroachment of the plot between the complainant and Devi Lal. It is further submitted that the version given in the FIR that the persons 15 in number heavily armed would run away on arrival of the neighbours leaving behind the vehicle is highly improbable thus supporting the argument that the alleged incident is a concocted story.

Learned state counsel submits that the Petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR in whose vehicle the arms were stored. Accused party is further alleged to have trespassed into the house of the complainant where ladies were present and admitted to create a terror so as to demolish the wall of their house and remove the encroachment and further instal a gate on the adjacent plot. They are alleged to have given beatings to the complainant besides his father and brother and also snatched chain and mobile.

Learned state counsel further on instructions from SI Ram Kumar, states that though the Petitioner has joined investigation but he has not cooperated in the interrogation. He submits that the alleged weapons and the mobile are yet to be recovered and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is required.

Keeping in view the serious allegations against the Petitioner, I do not deem it appropriate to extend the concession of anticipatory/pre arrest bail to the Petitioner, whose custodial interrogation would be required for effective investigation.