SURENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is alleged to have made an attempt to commit theft of oil from National Mathura Pipe Line. The FIR was registered on the basis of a secret information that two persons were expected to commit the theft from the National Mathura Pipe Line after preparation of some false documents. The petitioner is alleged to be the registered owner of the tanker, which had to carry the stolen oil.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned State counsel has contended that the petitioner has not joined the investigation pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has clarified that the petitioner has been involved in another similar case vide FIR No. 316 dated 27.12.2008 for an attempt to commit theft from the above said pipe line. He has filed an application for pre -arrest bail in the said case before the court of Sessions. There being no interim protection in the second case, it was difficult for the petitioner to comply with the directions of this Court.

(3.) I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of this case. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner. As per the secret information, the tanker, which stands in the name of the petitioner on recovery was found to be empty, as such it will certainly be a moot point during trial whether the petitioner can be held liable for an offence, which had not even been committed. Preparation of theft is not provided as an offence specifically as per the IPC. The petitioner seems to have a probable defence that he has sold the said tanker.