Vikram Singh @ Dislewa vs State Of Haryana
2021 Latest Caselaw 511 P&H

CRM-M-5010-2021                                -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                   CRM-M-5010-2021
                                   Date of decision:-10.2.2021


Vikram Singh @ Dislewa


                                                                  ...Petitioner
                     Versus



State of Haryana

                                                                 ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN



Present:    Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.


                            ****
H.S. MADAAN, J.

Case taken up through video conferencing.

This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail has

been filed by the petitioner - Vikram Singh @ Dislewa, aged about 34

years, resident of House No.778, Bhajju Ram School Wali Gali, Adarsh

Nagar, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, an accused in FIR No.531 dated

27.11.2020 under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, registered with Police

Station Adarsh Nagar, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the prosecution

1 of 4

story are that on 27.11.2020, the police received a secret information that

one Tinku Singh @ Radhe involved in smuggling of illicit liquor and

keeping a weapon with him, was sitting in his plot. A raid was

accordingly conducted there and Tinku Singh @ Radhey was arrested. .32

bore country-made pistol was recovered from him. He was interrogated,

during the course of which, he disclosed that he and his brother along with

one Kapil had been smuggling illicit liquor and his brother Vikram Singh

@ Dislewa had purchased three pistols and four country-made firearms

for Rs.60,000/- from a person in UP for their protection. In that way, the

present petitioner was nominated in this case.

Apprehending his arrest in this case, the present petitioner

had approached the Court of Sessions seeking grant of pre-arrest bail by

filing an application, which was assigned to learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Faridabad. However, his such request was declined by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 12.1.2021. As

such, the present petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the

instant petition asking for the similar relief.

Notice of the petition was issued to respondent - State.

Mr.Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana has appeared on behalf of respondent -

State and accepts notice on its behalf. He opposes the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

through the records.

Pre arrest bail is a discretionary relief and is to be granted in

exceptional cases and not in routine. It is meant to save the innocent

persons from harassment and inconvenience and not to screen the culprits

2 of 4

from arrest and custodial interrogation.

The petitioner is said to be involved in seven other criminal

cases, which means that he is a habitual criminal. Such type of person is

definitely not entitled to relief of pre-arrest bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has though contended that

relief of pre-arrest bail cannot be denied to a person, who is involved in

several other criminal cases and he has referred to judgments Sridhar Das

Versus State, 1998 (2) RCR(Criminal)477, Maulana Mohd. Amir

Rashadi Versis State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR(Criminal)586

and Rakesh Versus State of Haryana, 2010(3) RCR(Criminal)194 in

support of that contention. But I find that keeping in view the totality of

circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail. The

judgments referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner do not find

application to the present case due to different facts and circumstances

and the context in which such observations have been made.

Furthermore, in a criminal case, there cannot be any binding

precedent since facts of each case are different. There are various other

reasons for denying pre-arrest bail to the petitioner since his custodial

interrogation is necessary to effect the recovery of other firearms said to

have been purchased by him from a person in U.P. The information with

regard to identity of the person from whom, the firearms had been

purchased and details of the persons to whom they had been supplied is

also to be found out. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is

denied to the investigating agency that would leave many loose ends and

gaps in the investigation affecting the investigation being carried out

3 of 4

adversely, which is not called for.

Thus the petition is doomed for failure and is dismissed

accordingly.

10.2.2021                                            (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij                                                     JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking :               Yes/No

Whether reportable               :        Yes/No




                                      4 of 4