CRM-M No.17512 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.17512 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7.8.2009 Jakir ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Swaran Tiwana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG Punjab for the State/respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in case registered FIR No.83 dated 1.5.2009 under Sections 407/34/411 IPC at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Jaspal Singh in which he has stated that he is running Alwar Gobindgarh Transport Company in Mandi Gobindgarh. On 24.4.2009 one Akhtar along with Trolla bearing registration No.RJ 142-G-9432 loaded 22 Tons 866 Kg of iron. It was loaded on the telephone of Babu Ram Sharma of Alwar but Trolla did not reach Bhiwadi. On enquiry, it was found that neither number of the Trolla nor driver of the trolla was genuine. The number of the Trolla was RJ 26/7902 owned by one Raqshid Khan. The driver used a fake name Akhtar though his actual name is Sahibdeen and the person who had given CRM-M No.17512 of 2009 (O&M) -2- telephone call in the name of Babu Ram Sharma was infact Rashid Khan. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed on 22.6.2009. While the aforesaid bail application was pending in this Court, it was disclosed by the respondent that after the bail application was decided by the trial Court, Section 420 IPC was also added on 24.6.2009, therefore, counsel for the petitioner had filed an application CRM No.35398 of 2009 for adding Section 420 IPC in the title of the petition to enable him to apply for bail in the said Section also. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that addition of Section 420 IPC is without any basis. He further submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR. He is neither driver nor cleaner of the alleged truck and has been implicated at the instance of co-accused Rashid Khan, owner of the truck who has old enmity with the petitioner. On the other hand, counsel for the State has submitted that a fraud has been committed in this case, using fake number of the vehicle and fake names of the persons, with the complainant. Some recovery of goods has been effected near the house of the petitioner but some recovery of goods is yet to be effected. It is also submitted that as per the mobile details, the petitioner had long conversation with the co-accused on the relevant dates when the offence was committed. Thus, it is submitted that custody of the petitioner is required. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that mobile details of the petitioner and a long conversation with the other accused prima facie prove his involvement in the present case and the goods are also to be recovered, therefore, I do not find it to be a fit case to CRM-M No.17512 of 2009 (O&M) -3- extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the same is hereby dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 7.8.2009 Judge Meenu