BIJENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Rewari, District Rewari. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Mahabir Singh, ASI, Incharge Anti-Auto Theft Squad, Rewari on 13.5.2003. While Mahabir Singh, ASI along with other police officials was present at Jhajjar Chowk, Rewari for patrolling purposes, a secret information was received that one Bolaro Car which had been stolen and the chassis number of the vehicle had been changed and forged documents of the vehicle had been prepared by the accused was being brought from Bhiwani to sell the same at Rewari in the evening. If the vehicle was apprehended and checked and the persons bringing it interrogated, then many stolen vehicles could be recovered. The said persons had sold vehicles by preparing forged documents or were trying to sell the same. On receipt of the information, a check post was set up at Jhajjar chowk to apprehend the said vehicle. At around 6.30 p.m., a Bolaro vehicle came from Jhajjar side which was checked after stopping the same. The driver of the same disclosed his name as Bijender Singh (petitioner). The chassis number of the vehicle was found to be erased and changed. The changed number could be seen clearly. The Registration Copy produced by Bijender Singh (petitioner) was having changed numbers. The Registration Copy was different from the present pattern and the columns in the Registration Copy were filled with the different ink. Bijender Singh (petitioner) accepted that he and one Pawan Sharma had forged the Registration Copy and on this basis they used to get no objection certificate. Accordingly, Bijender Singh was apprehended on 13.5.2003 and the FIR above-mentioned was registered.

(3.) The petitioner was granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. However, he jumped bail and absconded. Therefore, he was declared a Proclaimed Offender by the Court on 16.12.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested in another case under the Excise Act and on production warrants, he was arrested in the present case on 16.3.2009 and since then, he is in custody. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses and two witnesses remain to be examined for which the case is fixed for tomorrow (i.e. 10.12.2009). Therefore, at this stage, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had earlier absconded and now only two witnesses remain to be examined, it would be inexpedient to extend him the concession of bail at this stage.