Blog

The petitioner was accused under the following, sections, 379-B IPC i.e. Punishment for theft, section 411IPC i.e., Dishonestly receiving stolen property. —”Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment ”. And section 34 IPC “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”. This judgment and final order were given in the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on the 6^th of July 2021 in the case of Vishal V/s state of Haryana CRM-M-24419-2021 by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, Mr. Rahul Makkar represented the petitioner and Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar represented the state of Haryana, the proceedings of the court were held on a virtual platform. A petition was filed for granting bail under section 439 of the code of criminal procedure. Here an FIR NO. 506 on 24/10/2020 was filed in the police station, Bahadurgarh.

 The following are the facts of the case, according to the counsel of the petitioner as per the FIR, A person was riding a motorcycle along with his pillion passenger, they came along and snatched the mobile phone from the complainant which resulted in his fall and he was caught on the spot. However, the complainant namely Arun Gayatri confessed in the trial court that the people who snatched the mobile from him were not present in the court and the petitioner who was held accused was a different person, the counsel submitted before the courts that the petitioner was in custody since the 24^th of October 2020 and therefore the petitioner pleaded and prayed for the grant of regular bail.

However, the counsel for the respondent held that he has agreed that the petitioner was held in custody since the 24^th of October 2020 and agreed that the complainant examined and stated that the accused persons were not the same persons who snatched his mobile phone and caused his fall. But however, the counsel for the respondent claimed that the petitioner was involved in another case pertaining to the arms act and that was his reason for opposing the grant of the bail to the petitioner under section 439 of crpc.

The court held that the custody period of the petitioner was not disputed and also the material witness was not disputed i.e. the complainant stated before the trial court that the petitioner was not the same person who snatched his mobile phone and caused him a fall. The court held that bail cannot be denied on the grounds of the arms act which was stated by the counsel of the respondent. The court concluded that “Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. ”

Click here to read the judgment