The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the bail plea of the petitioner, accused of an attempt to wage war against the government and held that the petitioner if enlarged on bail, his ability to garner a large number of persons to avoid the trial is potentially damaging against him, and merely on account of the long detention, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of a grant of regular bail.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner has been in jail for over 8 years and is accused of inciting a massive crowd at his ashram to resist arrest in a murder case. He's also alleged to have engaged in large-scale violence against the police. His initial bail request was denied due to the severity of the charges. This is his second attempt to secure bail in a 2014 case, where he faces several charges under the Arms Act and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner has undergone a long period of detention since he was arrested. He submitted that there were other similar accused but except for the petitioner and his son-in-law, all others are on bail. He further contended that the provisions of Sections 15 and 22(C) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, section 121A IPC are not made out and the petitioner had been convicted in two FIRs and had been acquitted in other two FIRs and according to Article 21 of the constitution, the bar under section 43-D(5) would not be attracted.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent argued that the petitioner incited a large crowd, leading to deaths, injuries, and property damage and the petitioner was central to the incident and didn't surrender despite court orders. He further argued that provisions of Section 15 of UAPA submit that there was the usage of bombs and there was an attempt to overawe the State by means of criminal force and, therefore, it would amount to a terrorist act. It was accordingly argued that once a prima facie case is made out, the provisions of Section 43 would be attracted and the person was not entitled to be released on bail if there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such a person is prima facie true. He contended that if the petitioner is released, his supporters would ensure that the trial would not take place by crowding the Court Complex on the dates fixed and there are serious apprehensions that the earlier situation would be repeated. He further contended that the petitioner is a person of criminal background and though he had undergone detention for over 8 years, his conduct did not warrant him to be given the benefit of regular bail.
Observations of the court:
The court observed that the petitioner has already been convicted under two different charges under Section 302 IPC which would be clear from the custody certificate and he was also involved in a murder case though acquitted and the gravity and the manner in which there was a display of strength to oppose the arrest warrants at his instance would go on to show that it cannot be recorded that he was not involved in any manner and the charges which had been framed against him under Section 15 and 22-C of UAPA are without any substance.
The court held that the use of criminal force and attempt to cause the death of public servants by use of firearms through his associates who were only complying with the orders of this Court would prima facie also go on to show that it was an attempt to wage war against the State under Section 121-A and there was criminal intent to attack the police behind the shield of women and children.
The court further observed that the petitioner, if enlarged on bail, his ability to garner a large number of persons to avoid the trial is potentially damaging against him, and merely on account of the long detention, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of a grant of regular bail. The court stated that it was with great difficulty that the arrest warrants as such were executed at the precious cost of the innocent lives of women and a child who were gathered in the Ashram and were being used as human shields and in such circumstances, merely on account of the long detention, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of grant of regular bail.
The decision of the Court:
The court refused to grant bail to the accused and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Rampal vs. State of Haryana
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Jain
Case No.: CRM-M-15399-2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Ms. Neha Sonawane, Ms. Amrita Garg, Mr. Arnav Ghai, Mr. Chand Rathi and Ms. Mahima Dogra
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
