The single judge bench of Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj of the Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Dr. Bhojraj Garg and another V. State of Haryana reiterated that there should be a balance between the individual liberty and the interest of the society.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the FIR was lodged against the petitioners that the petitioners indulged in performing illegal abortions. Based on the information they had, the crew stormed the petitioners' nursing home and discovered a female patient there. Along with this, the medicines were also recovered which are generally used during the process of abortion.
The petitioners were refused bail by the court of learned additional session judge, Faridabad. Therefore, the present petition was filed before the hon’ble court praying for the grant of anticipatory bail.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that in this instance, petitioners have been wrongfully and unjustifiably accused and the petitioners are reputable doctors. It was further contended that earlier, a medical team of the health department raided the premises of the petitioners and a case of false currency notes and medicine was falsely planted upon him by lodging an FIR. Even petitioner no.1 was acquitted by the court. The medications purportedly discovered from the petitioner's nursing home are similarly unrelated to pregnancy termination and were allegedly planted on the petitioners and the patient herself came to the nursing home, therefore, Section 313 of the IPC is not performed. Also, there is no justification for a custodial interrogation based on the overall facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioners, however, are prepared to participate in the probe.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the team of doctors constituted to raid the nursing home of the petitioners and caught them red-handed. It was also contended that the petitioner’s detention is necessary for a full and impartial inquiry because there is enough material that has been recovered from the nursing home that shows them to have been complicit in the alleged crime. At last, it was contended that the petitioners are the influential persons, and granting anticipatory bail to them would prejudice the fair investigation.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court stated the statutory parameters for the consideration of anticipatory bail given under section 438(1) CRPC, which are as follows
- the nature and gravity of the accusation
- the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offense.
- the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice; and
- where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested.
The court further relied on the judgments titled, ‘Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632,’ and ‘State Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7SCC 187’.
The court observed by looking at the facts and circumstances of the case that the case needs a thorough and fair investigation which is the backbone of every criminal trial. Granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners at this stage, when the investigation is at the threshold, in all its probability would prejudice the ongoing investigation. Thereafter, the court dismissed the petition and didn’t grant anticipatory bail to the accused.
CASE NAME- Dr. Bhojraj Garg and another V. State of Haryana
CITATION- CRM-M-35414-2022
DATED- 10.08.2022
CORUM- Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj
Picture Source :
