Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naveen And Ors vs State Of Haryana on 15 December, 2022
CRM-48757-2022 in/and
CRM-M-46734-2022 -1-
202+101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-48757-2022 in/and
CRM-M-46734-2022
Date of Decision: 15.12.2022
Naveen and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate
for the applicants/petitioners.
Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana
for the respondent/State.
Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate
for the complainant.
*****
HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL)
CRM-48757-2022:
Present application is filed for placing on record copy of order
dated 04.11.2020, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, as
Annexure P-6.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and order dated 04.11.2020, passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Rewari (Annexure P-6) is taken on record, subject to all just
exceptions.
CRM-M-46734-2022:
Petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case FIR No.106 dated
20.03.2020, registered at Police Sation Kasola, District Rewari, in which
1 of 4
CRM-48757-2022 in/and
they have been summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 325
IPC (Sections 307/201 added later on) in exercise of powers under Section
319 Cr.P.C.
According to the prosecution, on 20.03.2020 at about
10.30 A.M., Sachin got an intimation that his nephew Nikesh s/o Mahipal is
lying in injured condition at Yogshala and upon getting such information, he
and one Jitender Singh s/o Nemi Chand, resident of Gurdasmajra, reached at
Vyayamshalla, where his nephew was lying in unconscious condition having
blood and several injuries on his face. He thereafter managed the vehicle;
took his injured nephew and reached to Virath Hospital, Rewari for
treatment. Injuries have been given to Nikesh on his face and head by some
unknown persons.
It is evident that petitioners have not been named in the FIR.
However, investigating agency exonerated them while submitting its report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Upon an application being filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and
further finding that petitioners had played active role in the alleged
occurrence, the trial Court decided to summon them as additional accused
under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners do not intend to challenge order dated
09.09.2022, passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., whereby petitioners have
been summoned as additional accused and they shall face trial to vindicate
their innocence; however, petitioners seek anticipatory bail and in support
of their plea, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed in "Baljinder
2 of 4
CRM-48757-2022 in/and
Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab", 2015(3) RCR (Criminal) 950.
Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana as well as Mr. Mukesh
Yadav, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant have opposed prayer
of the petitioners on the plea that petitioners are main accused and they do
not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful
thought to the facts of the case.
It is well settled that jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. has
to be exercised by wise and careful use of discretion. In case, an accused has
a reason to believe that he would be arrested for a non-bailable offence, he
would be entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Though,
no hard and fast rule can be laid down for exercising of this power, it would
be taken on facts and circumstances of each case.
Section 438 Cr.P.C. does not confer a right on such accused to
be granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, however their plea would
deserve consideration, if appearance of additional accused can be secured
and the Court is satisfied that they would cooperate during the proceedings.
It is equally well settled that Article 21 of the Constitution
guarantees the Right to Life and Liberty to its citizens and criminal law
derives its source and sustenance from the Constitution. All other laws are
supplementary and incidental to the principles laid down in the
Constitution. Thus, such additional accused, who do not intend to defy law
and are ready to face trial, their plea for anticipatory bail can be considered.
It is apposite to state that at the stage of proceedings under
Section 319 Cr.P.C., some deposition of prosecution witness(s) is before the
3 of 4
CRM-48757-2022 in/and
Court and on consideration of same, additional accused are summoned and
such accused are entitled to pray for the concession of anticipatory bail on
the ground that their role was examined by the investigating agency but they
were found innocent.
A perusal of paper boook indicates that in the present case, the
petitioners were found innocent during the investigation and they have been
summoned on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial before
the Court. Peitioners do not intend to challenge order dated 09.09.2022,
passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The petitioners are not required for any
investigation or interrogation purposes as they have been summoned by the
Court as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the petitioners
are only to face trial. The trial of the case will take long time and no useful
purpose will be served by sending the petitioners behind bars.
Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances,
and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am of the
considered view that petitioners are entitled to the benefit of anticipatory
bail. The petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court on or
before 30.12.2022, and on doing so, they shall be released on bail, subject to
their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial
Court/Duty Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned.
15.12.2022 (HARSH BUNGER)
Apurva JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
