Vineet Soni vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Vineet Soni son of Vinod Kumar, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of pre-arrest bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No. 263 dated 09.12.2013 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 392 IPC and 25 of The Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.

Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, since the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the police, so, he is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

Precisely, the prosecution inter alia, claimed that complainant Suraj Sangam son of Girdhari Lal (for brevity ''the complainant'') was employed in cash loading branch of CMS Company, Sector 47, Chandigarh. On 09.12.2013, he and his other companions have loaded a cash box containing an amount of Rs. 1 Crore 68 Lacs, from the company premises, in a Van, bearing registration No. PB-10-DS-6195 in order to take it at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. As soon as, their van crossed the Punjab border and entered in Haryana area on Sheeshma Road, in the meantime, one Verna Car was already lying parked there. Three accused-persons wearing Punjab Police uniform were present in the car. They signaled to stop the vehicle of the complainant, in the garb of checking of documents. One of the persons asked gunman Gulshan Sharma, to show his arms license, whereas other accused asked second gunman Yashpal Sharma to show his arms license. The moment, they were in the process to show the license, then immediately, they (accused) threw chilly powder in their eyes. They snatched their guns as well. Thereafter, they opened the door of the locker, took the cash box, containing 1 Crore 68 Lacs forcibly and decamped from the place of occurrence.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in detail in the FIR, the prosecution claimed that on 09.12.2013, the petitioner and his other co-accused, have hatched a criminal conspiracy, committed robbery and looted the indicated amount of CMS Company, in the manner depicted here-in-above.

Meaning thereby, very direct and serious allegations of pointed commission of heinous offences are assigned to the petitioner and his other co-accused. The mere fact that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR, ipso facto, is not a ground, much less cogent, to grant him the concession of pre-arrest bail, as contrary urged on his behalf. It is matter of common knowledge that no prudent robber (accused) would disclose his name, patronage or address to the complainant before looting him.

As is evident from the impugned order that during the course of investigation, it revealed that on 27.02.2014, the police received a secret information that XUV 500, bearing registration No. CH-01-AU-8542, owned by the petitioner, relatable to the indicated robbery, would cross Amartex Chowk, Panchkula. Believing the information as genuine, the police stopped the vehicle. However, petitioner slipped away by leaving the vehicle on the spot. Hence, the involvement of the petitioner is clearly borne out. Not only that, his car in question and mobile phone are directly connected with the commission of the crime in question. The police has yet to interrogate him and collect evidence.

Therefore, considering the seriousness of the allegations of heinous and grave offences, to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential in this case. In case, he is allowed the concession of pre-arrest bail, then, the police will be deprived to, ascertain the modus operandi of petitioner, to unearth the scams, his involvement in such other cases, to recover the huge amount in question, other case property and effective investigation. It would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution, which, to my mind, is not legally permissible. Moreover, it cannot possibly be denied that the tendency and frequency of committing robbery by such accused has been tremendously increasing day by day, which needs to be curbed with heavy hands. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

Above-all, it is now well settled principle of law that the anticipatory bail should not be granted lightly and in a routine manner. The grant or refusal of such bail depends on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which, should enter the judicial verdict. The power u/s 438 Cr.PC is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court has also to see that an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. At the same time, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.

No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the seriousness of allegations of indicated offences against him and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such.

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail only.