10.2010 Subash Sharma v. State of Haryana

Mr.Rahul Deswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The complainant Mahender Singh Meena, Engineer, Northern Regiion, Pipelines, Indian Oil Corporation Panipat lodged the FIR regarding the theft of oil of the Indian Oil Corporation at Channel No.271.250 Km in village Ismalia, District Rohtak by unknown persons. It is alleged that Channel No.271.250 Km. of Northern Region Slaya-Mathura Pipeline passes through Ismaila village within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sampla. On 9.5.2010 Dees R. Guard, Sri Jai Bhagwan informed regarding the movement of some suspicious persons and vehicles at the said place. On the basis of the information received, the night patrolling party consisting of the complainant Mahender Singh Meena, Supervisor Roop Chand, Rajbir Singh, Gunman Mamu Singh and Gurmeet Singh reached at the spot and encircled the area. At about 11.00 p.m. three tankers reached there with 8-10 persons. On seeing them, the night patrolling party informed the police of Police Station Sampla and they took the tankers in their possession. However, the said 8-10 persons fled away from the spot. Out of the three tankers, one tanker with a capacity of 21 Kl. Lts. was loaded, one tanker with a capacity of 20 Kl. Lts. was half loaded and one tanker with a capacity of 20 Kl. Lts. was found empty. The place of occurrence fell between the fields of Jitender Singh and Jeeta. The Crl. Misc. No.M-29410 of 2010 ::2: place was identified with the help of Kilometer post and T.M.P. The digging work was going on to identify the pipeline. It was alleged that the act of the miscreants was that of destroying the national property which was in violation of the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the Pipeline Mineral and Petroleum Act, 1962 as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. It was requested that legal action be taken against 8-10 persons by identifying them immediately. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Subhash Sharma has submitted that three persons namely Gaurav Singhal, Paltu Singh and Pooran Mal were arrested by the police. The said three persons made disclosure statements before the Police and named four other persons, who were also involved in the theft of raw oil on the intervening night of 9/10.5.2010 from the Indian Oil Pipeline. The names of the said four persons disclosed by the co-accused before the Police are Leeladhar, Rashid, Rohit and Vinod Kumar. The said accused further disclosed that they had sold oil earlier on one occasion to one Subash Sharma (petitioner) on 8.5.2010. It is, in this manner that the name of the petitioner has figured in the case. Otherwise, it is submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the incident that had occurred on the intervening night of 9/10.5.2010. It is submitted that the petitioner was neither involved in the theft of oil nor he had caused any loss to the public property nor violated any provisions of the Pipeline, Mineral & Petroleum Act, 1962. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the co-accused had stated that they had sold oil to him on 8.5.2010. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter and after hearing the contentions of the learned counsel for the respective petitioners, I find no merit in the same. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Mahender Singh Meena, Engineer, Northern Region, Crl. Misc. No.M-29410 of 2010 ::3: Pipelines, Indian Oil corporation Panipat. On 9.5.2010, night patrolling party headed by Mahender Singh Meena, Engineer, had found three tankers with 8-10 persons at the place of the incident. On seeing the patrolling party, the said persons fled away from the spot. Out of the three tankers that were left at the spot, one tanker with a capacity of 21 Kl. Lts. was loaded, one tanker with a capacity of 20 Kl. Lts. was half loaded and one tanker with a capacity of 20 Kl. Lts. was found empty. The digging work was going on to identify the pipeline. Out of the three tankers that were left at the spot, two were owned by Rashid. The case relates to theft of oil of the Indian Oil Corporation from its under-ground pipelines. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide order dated 15.9.2010 (Annexure P-1) while declining bail to the petitioner, has observed that the present case falls under the category of an organized crime, as Slaya-Mathura underground oil pipeline was punctured and oil was extracted from the same. The involvement of the accused shows how in a meticulous and skilled manner, they had punctured the underground pipeline in order to steal the oil. The name of the petitioner has figured in the disclosure statements of Gaurav Singhal, Paltu Singh and Pooran Mal, who were arrested by the Police. They stated that on one occasion i.e. on 8.5.2010, they sold oil to the petitioner. The statement of co-accused though is not a substantive piece of evidence but that is to be considered at the time of trial in case. The same, however, can be taken into consideration for the purposes of investigation and to ascertain the entire facts and circumstances as also to know as to whether others including the petitioner are involved in the theft, supply and receipt of the stolen oil. In these circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required. In a case of pre-arrest bail, the advantage of custodial interrogation for eliciting more and useful material and information is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of powers to grant pre-arrest Crl. Misc. No.M-29410 of 2010 ::4: bail is somewhat extraordinary in nature. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for pre- arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. October 06, 2010 sukhpreet (S.S. SARON) JUDGE