Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rohtash vs State Of Haryana on 14 March, 2022
215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-35639-2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.03.2022
Rohtash
......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana .........Respondent
215-A CRM-M-43403-2020
Satyender ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
Present: Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-35639-2020).
Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-43403-2020).
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, A.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, for respondent no. 2.
*****
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
Case heard via video conferencing.
On 22.12.2020, the following order had been passed by this court
(in CRM-M-43403-2020):-
"All cases listed today have been taken up for
hearing by way of video conferencing because of the
situation existing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks the
concession of 'anticipatory bail', under the provisions of
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., upon FIR no.548, dated
06.11.2018, having been registered at Police Station Sadar
Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, alleging therein the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 420,
1 of 5
CRM-M-35639-2020 (O&M) -2-
CRM-M-43403-2020
467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the case of the petitioner is not dis-similar to that of
his co-accused Rohtash who has been admitted to interim
bail by this court vide an order passed on 09.11.2020 in
CRM-M-35639 of 2020.
Notice of motion.
Mr. B. S. Virk, learned DAG, Haryana,
accepts notice at the asking of the court.
Upon query to him, he submits that as per his
instructions, the petitioner and the said co-accused may be
at least similarly placed to some extent.
That being so, the petitioner is directed to
join investigation and upon him so joining if he is sought
to be arrested, he would be released on bail, on his
furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the arresting officer/Ilaqa Magistrate.
He shall, further, abide by all the conditions
stipulated in Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
If the arresting officer does not join the
petitioner in investigation, he would appear before the
learned Ilaqa Magistrate immediately, who would then
summon the arresting officer and direct him to join him in
investigation.
Adjourned to 12.01.2021.
To be heard alongwith CRM-M-35639 of
2020 ."
Thereafter, on 16.09.2021 the following order was passed:-
"Thereafter, the matter remained pending
with the interim order continued, with today learned State
counsel submitting on query that as per his instructions
from the police official who is present to assist him, the
petitioners' custodial interrogation is not required.
2 of 5
CRM-M-35639-2020 (O&M) -3-
CRM-M-43403-2020
In view of the above, in fact this petition
should be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous
today itself, even in terms of the ratio of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in M.C.Abraham vs. State of
Maharashtra (2003) 2 SCC 649.
However, learned counsel for the
complainant insists on arguing the matter, with him also
requesting that he may be allowed to file a reply to both
the petitions.
The complainant is ordered to be impleaded
as respondent no. 2 in each petition, with the Registry to
carry out the necessary correction in the memo of parties,
by taking his particulars from the FIR itself.
If the complainant wishes to file a reply to the
petitions he will do so well before the next date of hearing,
with an advance copy thereof to counsel for the
petitioners.
However, at the outset, before addressing
merits on the next date of hearing, counsel for the
complainant would be required to address arguments in
terms of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the aforesaid case.
It is to be of course noticed that learned
counsel for the complainant has submitted that the
petitioner in CRM-M-35639-2020 having been admitted to
interim bail upon this petition filed under the provisions of
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., such interim order cannot
continue, without him first surrendering before the trial
court.
Again it is to be noticed that learned State
counsel, upon query, has submitted that even as regards
that petitioner, whatever documents were to be recovered
from him having been recovered and the report under the
provisions of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. having been
3 of 5
CRM-M-35639-2020 (O&M) -4-
CRM-M-43403-2020
submitted qua him, his custodial interrogation is not
required.
That being so, naturally counsel for the
complaint would again be required to address arguments
at the first instance on that issue on the next date of
hearing.
Adjourned to 27.10.2021.
Interim order to continue in both cases.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the
file of the other connected case."
Thereafter also, the matter not having been argued for one reason
or the other, today, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent
no. 2, submits that the ratio of the judgment in Abrahams' case (supra), would
not be applicable, in view of the fact that the petitioner in CRM-M-35639-2020
was admitted to bail on 09.11.2020, on a statement having been made on
06.11.2020 to the effect that the matter may be referred to mediation as the
dispute is between close family relations.
It is seen that thereafter on 09.11.2020, counsel for the petitioner
had submitted that the petitioner being in jail, even a compromise could not be
attempted and therefore to enable the parties to reach some kind of settlement (if
possible), the petitioner in CRM-M-35639-2020, had been admitted to interim
bail on 09.11.2020.
He thus submits that the mediation proceedings having failed, the
petitioners cannot be allowed to continue to remain on bail.
In that context, it is to be observed by this court that though
undoubtedly the petitioners may have been initially been released on bail to
enable the parties to come to a settlement; however, thereafter the State having
filed a reply to the effect that their custodial interrogation is not required, and
4 of 5
CRM-M-35639-2020 (O&M) -5-
CRM-M-43403-2020
with learned counsel for the parties being ad idem that the report under the
provisions of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. has been submitted to the competent
court and in fact even a charge has been framed by the trial court, in my opinion
the contention of learned counsel for the complainant cannot be accepted, not
just in view of the fact that obviously once the trial has commenced the
custodial interrogation by the investigating agency would not be required, but
also in view of the stage of the trial itself.
It is also to be observed that even if the matter had not reached the
stage of trial, if the investigating agency itself made a statement to the effect that
the petitioners' custodial interrogation is not required, in terms of the ratio of the
aforesaid judgment in (in MC Abrahams' case), even a Constitutional court
would not normally direct their arrest.
That being so, without making any comment on the actual merits
of the case, the petitions are allowed and the interim orders passed earlier are
made absolute, on the same terms and conditions.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the other
connected case.
March 14, 2022 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH)
nitin JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes.
5 of 5
