PARWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.02 dated 2.1.2021 under Sections 381/407/420 IPC, registered at Police Station Munak, District Karnal.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations in the FIR, registered at the instance of Ramandeep Singh, it is stated that he is partner of M/s Manmohan Service Centre, Petrol Pump, Shahabad Markanda. He has employed Satinder as a driver and Balkar as a conductor on his truck bearing registration No.HR-65-A-2349 to bring oil from Panipat depot. For the last four months it was noticed that the quantity of the oil in the tanker was less. On 29.12.2020, he sent Satinder and Balkar on his tanker to bring oil and the complainant followed them. At 2.00 p.m., he noticed that Satinder, after getting the tanker filled with oil from Panipat depot, drove the tanker to Khan Welding Shop of co-accused Jai Parkash and started committing theft of oil. The complainant saw that Parwinder Singh @ Prince, i.e. the present petitioner, was with him and he had climbed atop of the tanker and was extracting the oil. The complainant make a phone call at No.100. In the meantime, Satinder drove tanker from the back of shop towards front on the road and complainant stopped him and Balkar conductor also reached there on the motorcycle of Parwinder Singh @ Prince (the present petitioner) and told them that the petitioner is an agent of co-accused Jai Parkash. In the meantime, the police came there and the driver and conductor assured that they will make the loss as all the members have formed a gang of committing theft. It is further stated that the vehicle tracking system fitted in the tanker was removed from the vehicle by the petitioner and the modus operandi was that when the vehicle came out of the Panipat depot, the petitioner used to sit in the vehicle handover the motorcycle to Balkar conductor, who would follow them to the place where the theft of oil is committed.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that that the petitioner has no connection with the complainant and the truck was in possession of the driver and conductor and the petitioner has been wrongly implicated and no offence under Sections 381/407/420 IPC is made out against the petitioner.