VIPUL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for seeking concession of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 0578 dtd. 29/9/2021 registered under Ss. 342, 395, 397, 307, 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec. 25, 25(1) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Mujesar, District Faridabad.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia contends that as per the FIR registered on the statement of Mohit S/o Ved Aggarwal, two boys with muffled faces had pushed the servant of the complainant and decamped with a sum of Rs.4..004.5 lakhs in a bag along with other items at gun point. Upon the complainant raising an alarm, his father Ved Aggarwal came down. The third boy was standing outside with a motorcycle and both the boys fled away on their motorcycle. When the father of the petitioner tried to catch hold one of them, they fired a shot on his father which hit on the left shoulder. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and there is no attribution to the petitioner of having play any active or passive rolel in commission of the offence. It is pointed out that the name of the petitioner figured in the disclosure made by the co-accused as per which three persons were sitting in a separate car and that the petitioner is alleged to one amongst those. He further submits that pursuant to the arrest of the petitioner on 4/10/2021, a recovery of Rs.5,000.00 is alleged to have been effected. He submits that investigation in the case is complete and that his custodial interrogation is not warranted. It is further argued that the petitioner has been in custody for nearly 07 months and that the trial is yet to commence.

(3.) Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the application and it is contended that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and that he is involved in two other cases bearing FIR No. 163 of 2019 under Sec. 379-B and 34 IPC and Sec. 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Gaunaur, Sonepat and FIR No. 93 of 2020 registered under Ss. 354-A and 354-D and 506 of the IPCand Sec. 67 of the Information Technology Act at WPS, Manesar, Gurugram. He could not however pointed out as to whether the petitioner is on bail in the said offences or not . He could so however not controvert the fact that the FIR does not attribute any overt act on the part of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. It is also evident that the involvement of the petitioner is only on the basis of a disclosure made by the co-accused.