Crl. Misc. No. M-1987 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-1987 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.1.2011 Jasmer ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Goripuria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station City Jind, District Jind, vide FIR No.878 dated 25th December, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that tractor in question was released on Sapurdari by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala, vide order Annexure P-2, he being the registered owner. He further submits that the tractor was in fact stolen and the petitioner got a case (FIR No.265 dated 30th November, 2009) registered at Police Station Uchana in respect thereof. Later, in the said case, untraced report was submitted by the police on 16th July, 2010 which was accepted by the court. Subsequently, the said tractor was recovered in another case in Amritsar whereafter it was released on Sapurdari. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to concession of pre-arrest Crl. Misc. No. M-1987 of 2011 2 bail. Learned State counsel on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail. He submits that the petitioner got the tractor in question stolen by his own persons and lodged an FIR. Later he received an insurance claim in respect thereof. After having received the claim, he moved an application before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala for releasing the tractor on Sapurdari to him, the same having been recovered by the police in another case in State of Punjab. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that the petitioner had accepted the untraced report submitted by the investigating agency in the FIR lodged by him under Section 379 IPC. Thereafter the tractor was recovered by the police in another case. The petitioner moved an application for release of the tractor on Sapurdari. He had, however, already received an insurance claim in respect of theft thereof. In view of nature of allegations, it appears that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary. He is thus not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE January 25, 2011 'rajpal'