Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surender Kataria vs State Of Haryana And Another on 31 March, 2022
CRM-M-13504-2022 1
106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13504-2022
Date of decision : 31.03.2022
Surender Kataria .....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present :- Mr. S.S. Virk, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner in case FIR No.0479 dated 23.10.2021, under Sections 3, 4
and 5 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sections 120-B,
323, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 376-D, 377, 506 of IPC, registered at Police
Station Industrial Sector-29, Panipat, District Panipat.
As per the facts of the case, the present FIR was lodged by
the prosecutrix (name concealed) aged 13 years on the basis of the
allegations of immoral trafficking against the petitioner. The petitioner
along with the co-accused used the prosecutrix for blackmailing the
senior citizens by falsely implicating them in rape cases. The prosecutrix
was allegedly raped repeatedly by the petitioner and the co-accused. The
FIR was lodged to take the legal action against the culprits. On the
commencement of the investigation, apprehending arrest, the petitioner
approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court), Panipat, however, after hearing counsel for the parties, the prayer
was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track
1 of 5
Court), Panipat vide order dated 25.03.2022. Aggrieved by the same,
petitioner has approached this Court praying for the grant of anticipatory
bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The main thrust of the
arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecutrix has
given affidavit dated 17th March, 2022 wherein, she has deposed that
Surender Kataria has never done any wrong act with her. Thus, it is clear
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR. He submits that
in view of the above, petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the
records.
From the perusal of the allegations in the FIR and the other
relevant record, it is apparent that the prosecutrix has levelled serious and
sensitive allegations against the accused including the petitioner and
investigation is still pending. The affidavit relied upon by the petitioner
further aggravates the seriousness of the allegations and the probabilities
of scuttling the investigation by the petitioner.
For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory
parameters are given under Section 438(1) Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-
"Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest:-
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be
arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable
offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session
for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest
he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking
into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely:-
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to
2 of 5
whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on
conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and
where the accusation has been made with the object of
injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so
arrested,
Either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim
order for the grant of anticipatory bail."
As per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, while
granting anticipatory bail, the Court is to maintain a balance between the
individual liberty and the interest of society. However, the interest of the
society would also prevail upon the right of personal liberty. The relevant
part of the judgment is as follows:-
31.In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed
accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering
the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the
object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by
having him arrested, a direction for the release of the
applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would
generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears
likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that
taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will
flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But
the converse of these propositions is not necessarily
true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an
inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted
unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by
mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be
granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond.
There are several other considerations, too numerous to
enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with
the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail.
3 of 5
The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the
context of the events likely to lead to the making of the
charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's
presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable
apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and
"the larger interests of the public or the state" are some
of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind
while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The
relevance of these considerations was pointed out in The
State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, which, though, was a case
under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the
present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount
consideration to remember that the freedom of the
individual is as necessary for the survival of the society
as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A
person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man
entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to
submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of
conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in
consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall
be enlarged on bail.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997)
7SCC 187, held as under:-
6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that
custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-
oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced
with a favorable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a
case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is
of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful
informations and also materials which would have been
concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the
suspected person knows that he is well protected and
insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is
interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition
would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the
4 of 5
custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the
person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be
countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all
accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that
responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a
responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of
disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as
offenders.
Examining the facts and circumstances of the present case, in
the light of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the
opinion that the petitioner fails to qualify for exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Petition, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.
Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case.
( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
31.03.2022 JUDGE
m. sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
