Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ankit vs State Of Haryana on 28 September, 2022
CRM-M-44074-2022 -1-
208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-44074-2022
Date of Decision: 28.09.2022
Ankit ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. H.S. Deol, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Naveen S. Panwar, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate,
for the complainant.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in
FIR No.264, dated 12.08.2022 under Sections 323, 324, 379-B/34 IPC,
registered at Police Station Bawal, District Rewari.
The present FIR was lodged on the basis of the complaint made
by the complainant, namely, Mahender son of Rohtash by stating that on
11.08.2022 at about 09.00 p.m. in the night time, he along with Hawa Singh
were coming from the village Nangli Parsapur by taking Rs.3000/- from one
Deepak and were returning to their village by riding on the motorcycle and
near Gujar Market Bus Stand, the accused persons stopped the motorcycle
and snatched the key of motorcycle and started hurling abuse and beatings.
The aforesaid Hawa Singh ran away from the spot and the accused persons
1 of 5
armed with Kulhari, Lathi and sticks started giving beatings to the
complainant. The other co-accused, namely, Jassu gave the Kulhari blow
and Ankit (Petitioner) gave Sariya blow and Bunty-co-accused gave rod
blow and the complainant suffered injuries. Ankit (Petitioner) also showed
his weapon and gave threats to kill him and Rs.3,000/- which was kept in
his pocket, were snatched and the clothes of the complainant were also torn
by him and thereafter, he also got him bitten by two dogs and in this way,
the complainant got injuries on head and he became unconscious.
Thereafter, some persons informed his family members, who took him to the
hospital for first aid.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner, although named in the FIR, has been falsely implicated and it
was on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused his
name was nominated and the petitioner was not even present on the spot. He
further submitted that even otherwise also the subject matter of the present
case was pertaining to Rs.3,000/- only, which is a petty amount and
therefore, the petitioner may be considered for the grant of anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, learned Additional
Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that a detailed affidavit of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Bawal, Rewari, District Rewari has been filed
and while referring to the same, he submitted that even as per the FIR itself,
the specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and he has been
specifically named by the complainant. He further submitted that it is not
only the case of snatching of Rs.3,000/-, but it is a case where a group of
persons together snatched an amount of Rs.3,000/- and also caused injuries
2 of 5
to the complainant and as per the MLR, there were 8 injuries to the
complainant including head injury due to which the complainant became
unconscious. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, he gave iron rod
injury to the complainant.
Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has further
referred to Para 8 of the affidavit and submitted that the petitioner has got
criminal antecedents and he has been earlier involved in FIR No.63 of 2018,
under Sections 392/411 IPC and Sections 2 & 3 of the Gangsters Act,
registered at Police Station Shergarh, District Mathura (U.P.) and also in
FIR No.95 of 2018, under Sections 411/414 IPC, registered at Police Station
Shergarh, District Mathura (U.P.) and also in FIR No.167, dated
21.03.2020, under Sections 147/148/149/341/384/506 IPC and Section 25
of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bawal. He further submitted
that the offence was committed in the evening where a group of persons
attacked the complainant and after causing injuries to him, snatched cash
from him and he lost his consciousness. Recovery of weapon is yet to be
effected from the petitioner and the other co-accused. He also submitted that
such kind of offences are taking place frequently and considering the
criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the custodial investigation of the
petitioner is required for the purpose of elicitation of truth and for
qualitative interrogation. Learned State counsel also referred to the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State represented by
C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma", (1997) 7 SCC 187.
Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate has caused appearance on
behalf of the complainant and submitted that the complainant has given an
3 of 5
affidavit and a photocopy of the same has been attached as Annexure P-4
whereby he has stated that the present petitioner was not present at the place
of occurrence.
However, learned State counsel has stated that such kind of
affidavit cannot vest any right upon the petitioner for grant of anticipatory
bail. He has referred to Para No.6 of the affidavit in this regard wherein it
was found during the investigation that the cell phone location of the
petitioner has been obtained and has been found in the vicinity of the place
of occurrence and further the analysis of the call detail record also revealed
that the co-accused Jaswant and the petitioner had a conversation amongst
each other after the occurrence as well in the wee hours on the intervening
night of 11/12.08.2022. He also submitted that during investigation, it was
found that the petitioner was present on the spot on the basis of CDR etc.,
and therefore, the execution of any affidavit would not be of much
significance.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The role of the petitioner has been described in the FIR itself
and he has been named in the FIR. The allegations were that a group of
persons including the petitioner had attacked the complainant and gave 8
injuries to him and snatched Rs.3,000/- from him and later the complainant
became unconscious due to injuries. As per the State Counsel, enough
evidence has been collected to show that the petitioner was within the
vicinity of the place where the offence was committed. Therefore, the
arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
was not present on the spot cannot be accepted at this stage. The petitioner
4 of 5
is also stated to be involved in two more cases i.e. FIR No.63 of 2018, under
Sections 392/411 IPC and Sections 2 & 3 of the Gangsters Act and FIR
No.95 of 2018, under Sections 411/414 IPC. Both were registered in U.P.
Another FIR No.167, dated 21.03.2020, under Sections
147/148/149/341/384/506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, was also
registered at Police Station Bawal in the State of Haryana. The argument
raised by the learned State counsel that for the purpose of recovery of
weapons and for the purpose of qualitative interrogation, the custodial
investigation of petitioner is required, carries weight and cannot be ignored.
Therefore, considering the gravity as well as the antecedents of the
petitioner, this Court does not deem it fit and proper to grant anticipatory
bail to the petitioner.
Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same
is hereby dismissed.
However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as
an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is only meant for the
purpose of decision of present petition.
28.09.2022 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
