CRM No. M-22327 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-22327 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.8.2009 Jagdeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a prayer for anticipatory bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 392, 397, 412 read with Section 34 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Murthal, District Sonipat, vide FIR No.275 dated 1st November, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated. He is not required for the purpose of custodial interrogation and thus he may be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that the petitioner approached the court of Sessions Judge, Sonipat for grant of pre-arrest bail. However, his petition was dismissed as the prosecution apprised the court that the petitioner had been declared proclaimed offender and all efforts to nab CRM No. M-22327 of 2009 2 him had failed. It was also contended that the petitioner was actively involved in receiving stolen properties at considerably reduced rates and disposing of the same in open market. His custodial interrogation was thus sought. The allegation in the FIR is that a vehicle Innova was stolen on the highway at gunpoint. The same was to be sold to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.1.00 lac. Amount of Rs.23,700/- had already been paid by the petitioner to co-accused Sandeep and Savinder. Keeping in view the nature of allegations against the petitioner, I am of the considered view that he is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merits. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 17, 2009 'rajpal'