Sanjeev Attri vs State of Haryana

K.K. Srivastava, J.

Notice of the application for anticipatory bail was issued only in respect of petitioner No. 2/Vijender Attri in case FIR No. 9 dated 6.1.1999, under Sections 342, 382, 427, 506 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad.

The informant/Om Parkash Sharma also sought permission to intervene in this case in order to oppose the application for anticipatory bail.

State of Haryana was represented by Shri Surender Lamba, AAG.

As per allegations made in the FIR, the occurrence took place on 4.1.1999 at about 12.30 p.m.in the office of the factory of Supertech Industries, situated in plot No. 131, Sector 6, Faridabad, Rajan Sharma, nephew of the informant/Om Parkash Sharma was sitting in his office. It is alleged that the petitioner Vijender Attri alongwith his son Sanjeev Attri and 35 persons came in the factory and illegally confined Rajan Sharma in the office and also made the employees sit in the backshed. They had brought with them a crane, 45 Tata Sumos, a Maruti Van, a Gypsy and forcibly took away lathe machine, shapper machine, one generator set 18 KV and an Adda machine besides other goods and damaged the CNC machine. It was alleged that earlier on they had given threat to Rajan Sharma that they should be made partners in the business, else they would ruin him. It was also alleged that Sanjeev Attri had earlier committed theft of the cheques worth Rs. 20,000/ of Rajan Sharma and got the same encashed. However, no report was lodged about that incident. The petitioners and their companions are said to have held out threats while leaving the factory.

Learned counsel for petitioner Vijender Attri contended that Rajan Sharma had no connection with Supertech Industries and on the other hand Sanjeev Attri was the sole proprietor of the said firm and the said factory was running in a premises taken on rent w.e.f. 1.9.1996. The various machineries mentioned in the complaint were purchased by Sanjeev Attri after getting loan from State Bank of Patiala. It was also contended that two units were running in the rented premises. One of the business was being run by M/s Supertch Industries while the other was being run by M/s Manu Engineering Works. The account of M/s Supertech Industries with the bank was at number 513 while that of the other unit was set number 514 in State Bank of Patiala. Sanjeev Attri had informed the partners about shifting of the machinery from plot No. 131, Sector 6, Faridabad to Plot No. 207, Sector 59, Ballabgarh. Vijender Attri, father of Sanjeev Attri was employed with M/s Pankaj Gas Company Sahibabad and had no connection with M/s Supertech Industries and he had been falsely implicated in this case.

On behalf of the informant, it was urged that a rent note was executed between M/s Verma Die Casting through its partner Naresh Verma and Supertech Industries, Faridabad, through its partner Shri Rajan Sharma. It will appear from the rent note that a shed measuring 1050 square feet was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 3500/ per month for a period of 36 months commencing from 1.9.1996. The possession was also handed over to Rajan Sharma, who was partner of M/s Supertech Industries. There was another rent note dated 2.6.1996, showing that Naresh Verma on behalf of M/s Verma Die Casting had let out to Sanjeev Attri a shed measuring about 100 square feet @ Rs. 500/ per month for 36 months.

The statements of the witnesses have been recorded from which it was prima facie shown that the incident had taken place on 4.1.1999 when the aforesaid persons trespassed into the factory and forcibly took away the machinery and Tata Sumos and other vehicles.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions and gone through the material placed on record.

At the time of motion hearing, the application for bail of the petitioner/Sanjeev Attri was already declined. Notice was issued only in respect of petitioner No. 2/Vijender Attri, father of Sanjeev Attri. It is not the case of even the complainant that Vijender Attri had anything to do with the aforesaid Supertech Industries or the machines thereof. The disputes is primarily between Sanjeev Attri on one hand and Rajan Sharma on the other hand. There is, however, a mention of the name of Vijender Attri in the FIR, alleging that Vijender Attri had accompanied Sanjeev Attri alongwith 3035 persons and when this occurrence took place. No role has been ascribed to Vijender Attri petitioner. In my considered view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Vijender Attri deserves to be granted concession of anticipatory bail, which is granted to him subject to the following conditions :

i) In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer;

ii) He shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any way;

iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned court of competent jurisdiction without prior permission;

iv) This order of anticipatory bail shall remain operative for a period of 60 days from today.