The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed an appeal seeking release as an under trial. The court ruled that the complainant's conduct was suspicious and noted that the petitioner's continued custody was unnecessary, as the investigation was complete, there was no risk of evidence tampering, and he was unlikely to flee trial proceedings, granting him bail.
Brief Facts:
The complainant filed a complaint seeking the registration of a case against the petitioner and levelled allegations including conspiracy among the petitioner and co-accused with the motive to illegally torture the complainant and her family members. The complainant claimed that she was tortured and beaten while under police remand and there is a video clip in which the petitioner physically assaulted the complainant to force confessions regarding property matters, along with threats to falsely incriminate them with heavy charges and it was supported by statements of police officers who were accused of misusing their official powers at the time and they confessed to their presence at the scene during the alleged torture. The petitioner was arrested during the investigation and has been in custody. Following the denial of bail by the learned trial Court, the petitioner is now before this Court seeking his release as an undertrial in a case.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the co-accused has already been granted interim anticipatory bail by an order and on the ground of parity alone, the petitioner is thus entitled to bail, yet he is languishing in jail. It is further contended that based on the same set of concocted allegations/incidents, the petitioner had previously been accused by the same complainant, and after investigation, the police presented a cancellation report finding the allegations against the petitioner to be false and concluded in this case that no evidence was found regarding the physical torture of the complainant in police custody and a cancellation report was filed in which allegations were found to be false. It is argued that the present FIR is a retaliatory response to the FIR in which the complainant herself was/is an accused and it had been registered by a co-accused and the complainant was convicted under this FIR. It is further argued that when the petitioner was granted bail, the vigilance bureau immediately registered another FIR on the same day with allegations of possessing disproportionate assets and the petitioner was granted interim bail by the court.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that there are concerns about the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from trial proceedings and tampering with evidence if granted bail. It is also argued that the petitioner has committed a serious offense.
Observations of the court:
The court observed that the conduct of the complainant herself appears to be highly dubious and there appears to be an orchestrated attempt on the part complainant in collusion with certain officials, be it out of vengeance or otherwise, to keep filing one FIR or after other to somehow keep the petitioner in custody and be that as it may, all these issues are matter of trial at this stage.
The court further observed that the challan had already been filed, the investigation regarding the petitioner was complete, and he was not required for custodial interrogation. The court stated that the allegations against the petitioner are subject to the outcome of trial and the trial is anticipated to take a considerable amount of time. Bail serves the purpose of allowing an accused to remain free until their guilt or innocence is determined but the petitioner has been in detention for more than 03 months. The court further stated that the Petitioner’s continued preventive custody is based on an unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses but There is no probability of tampering with evidence as it has already been seized by the investigating agency.
The court held Co-accused of the petitioner has already been granted interim bail and the petitioner is a serving police officer in the State having a fixed abode, it is unlikely that he poses any flight risk and/or will flee from trial proceedings.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition.
Case Title: Ashish Kapoor vs. State of Punjab
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Monga
Case No.: CRM-M-52509-2023 (O&M)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Bipin Ghai, Mr. Nikhil Ghai
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Ferry Sofat, Mr. Hakam Singh, Mr. Nikhil Vashisht
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
