Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vishnu vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 September, 2022
CRM-M No.33930 of 2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.33930 of 2022
Reserved on: 01.09.2022
Date of decision: 05.09.2022
VISHNU
...Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Himanshu Jain, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
1. This is the second petition that has been filed under Section 438
Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein in criminal case
No.0012 dated 02/04.07.2016, CIS No.COMI/51/2/2016, titled as Tota Ram
versus Vishnu and others, registered under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 406, 506
and 120-B of the IPC, at Police Post Jayakava, Police Station Hodal,
Haryana.
2. In brief, the facts as culled out are that a complaint case was
filed by the father of deceased Manisha against the petitioner herein and his
parents on the allegations that the petitioner and his parents used to harass
and beat his daughter on account of bringing insufficient dowry. It is stated
1 of 5
in the said complaint that the petitioner and his parents had put kerosene on
Manisha and set her on fire. She died on 11.03.2016 while undergoing
treatment in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi and at that point of time,
she was three months' pregnant. Prior thereto, from 06.03.2016 to
07.03.2016, she remained hospitalized in Guru Nanak Hospital, Palwal.
3. The petitioner herein had initially approached this Court by
way of filing CRM-M-24452-2021 and after arguing for some time, learned
counsel for the petitioner therein sought to withdraw the bail petition.
Thereafter, after a gap of one year, this second bail application for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein has been filed seeking a plea that
when the first bail application had been filed, it could not be brought to the
notice of this Court that deceased Manisha had given her dying statement on
09.03.2016 (Annexure P-6) before the Executive Magistrate, Chanakya
Puri, Delhi while she was admitted at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi
that the burn injuries that she had suffered, were accidental in nature.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein would argue that in
the complaint that has been filed, there is no averment of the abovesaid
statement as recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Chanakya Puri, Delhi
and it is only now that the petitioner has been made aware of the abovesaid
statement given by deceased Manisha regarding the incident in question. He
would rely upon the statement of deceased Manisha dated 09.03.2016
(Annexure P-6) in support of his argument. He would also rely upon the
judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Rani Dudeja versus State of
Haryana, 2017(13) SCC 555, by Kerala High Court in Aneesh versus State
of Kerala, 2014(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 454 and by Gauhati High Court in
2 of 5
Runu Roy versus State of Assam, 2005(17) R.C.R. (Criminal) 602, to
argue that in case first bail application is dismissed as withdrawn, the
second bail application for anticipatory bail would be maintainable in view
of changed circumstances and there is no bar for the second bail application
to be filed at a subsequent stage.
5. Pursuant to notice of motion having been issued on 03.08.2022,
status report by way of an affidavit of Sh. Sajjan Singh, HPS, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Hodal, District Palwal on behalf of State of
Haryana dated 30.08.2022 has been filed in Court and the same is taken on
record. Appearance has also been caused by the counsel on behalf of the
complainant, who would submit that it is only after the preliminary evidence
has been recorded in the complaint case that the petitioner herein has been
summoned. It is also argued that deceased Manisha used to be tortured by
the petitioner herein on account of inadequate dowry and the Panchayat had
to be convened to settle the dispute herein. It is argued that deceased
Manisha was pregnant at the relevant time, when she was subjected to
torture by the petitioner and his parents. It is also argued by learned counsel
for the complainant that after Manisha had suffered burn injuries, the
petitioner herein took her to Palwal hospital instead of Hodal hospital,
which was at a farther distance, ensuring that timely treatment be not given
to her. Apart from the aforesaid facts, it is brought to the notice of this Court
that the petitioner herein has been summoned on several occasions and to
the extent that non-bailable warrants have been issued against him by the
Court, but still he has not put in an appearance therein and is evading his
arrest.
3 of 5
6. Learned State counsel would contend that on account of non-
appearance of the petitioner despite being summoned, non-bailable warrants
had been issued against the petitioner as far back as on 04.10.2021, but the
petitioner has managed to evade the service and his arrest and has now
approached this Court by way of filing the second bail application for grant
of anticipatory bail and the concession of bail be not given to the petitioner
as non-bailable warrants have been issued against him by the Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also
perused the pleadings of the case as well as case laws cited.
8. I find that this is the second bail application that has been filed
by the petitioner herein after his first bail application was dismissed as
withdrawn as not being pressed vide order dated 30.06.2021 as learned
counsel for the petitioner, at that relevant time, had argued the matter and
then sought to withdraw the matter as not pressed.
9. The plea that the petitioner herein was unaware of the dying
statement having been made by deceased Manisha to the Executive
Magistrate, Chanakya Puri, Delhi on 09.03.2016 regarding the accident
having taken place and not blaming any one, was not to his knowledge,
cannot be accepted at the present stage. The judgments as relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner hereinabove would not be applicable as
the first bail application of the petitioner herein was dismissed as withdrawn
as not pressed after the same was argued.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein would argue that
deceased Manisha had given her dying statement before the Executive
Magistrate, Chanakya Puri, Delhi on 09.03.2016, in which she had
4 of 5
exonerated the petitioner and his family members of any wrong doing,
however, this very statement was under consideration in the earlier petition
i.e. CRM-M-24452-2021 and as this Court was not inclined to grant the
concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the petition was dismissed
as withdrawn, being not pressed.
11. It is also worthwhile to note that the petitioner herein has not
put in an appearance before the summoning Court, Hodal, District Palwal
despite several opportunities having been allowed to him and in this regard,
non-bailable warrants have been issued against him and he is evading his
arrest.
12. Consequently, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been
able to point out any change in circumstances in the instant petition and also
in view of the fact that non-bailable warrants have been issued against the
petitioner herein, the instant petition is dismissed.
(JAISHREE THAKUR)
05.09.2022 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
