Punjab-Haryana High Court
Varinderjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056581
-1-
CRM-M-19278 of 2023
2023:PHHC:056581
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-19278 of 2023
Date of decision: 20.04.2023
Varinderjeet Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.202 dated
11.09.2022 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 34 IPC and lateron added
Sections 325, 326 IPC, registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh,
District Sangrur.
2. Present FIR has been registered on the complaint of
complainant-Amandeep Singh stating therein that he has been plying
taxi make Tavera. About 2/3 months back, Karamjeet Singh son of
Keso had sent his taxi in his relations and for which Karamjeet Singh
had to pay fare to the complainant. However, Karamjeet Singh had not
paid fare and he was avoiding the payment on pretext or the other. On
10.09.2022 at about 8.00 p.m. complainant Amandeep Singh received
call on his mobile phone 93896-50008 from the mobile phone of
Karamjeet Singh bearing no.94652-14513 and Karamjeet Singh had
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056581
CRM-M-19278 of 2023
2023:PHHC:056581
called complainant at drain bridge of his village. On that complainant
Amandeep Singh had visited that place. At that place, Karamjeet Singh
along with petitioner-Varinderjeet Singh and Harinderpal Singh was
already present. Karamjeet Singh was armed with Gandasa.
Varinderjeet Singh was armed with Kirpan and Harinderpal Singh was
armed with stick. Karamjeet Singh exhorted that complainant be caught
hold and he be taught lesson. Thereafter, Karamjeet Singh gave
Gandasa blow on the forehead of complainant Amandeep Singh.
Petitioner-Vikramjeet Singh gave Kirpan blow on the left leg of
complainant Amandeep Singh. Complainant Amandeep Singh fell
down. Karamjeet Singh then gave second blow with Gandasa towards
Amandeep Singh and Amandeep Singh raised his right arm in order to
save himself and that blow struck on his right elbow. Thereafter all the
three assailants, while giving injuries to Amandeep Singh, took him in
the field of Harinderpal Singh, near the canal. Harinderpal Singh gave
blows with his stick on the person of Amandeep Singh. Petitioner-
Varinderjeet Sigh gave blow with his kirpan on the right leg of
complainant Amandeep Singh and thereafter they all the three
assailants kept on giving blows with their respective weapons on
the person of complainant, who was lying on the ground.
Complainant was bleeding profusely and on seeing the serious
condition of complainant, all the three assailants fled away from the
spot along with their respective weapons. Complainant informed his
wife through phone.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056581
CRM-M-19278 of 2023
2023:PHHC:056581
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has
not committed any offence and he was not present at the alleged place
of occurrence. He further submitted that petitioner is not involved in
any other case and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and
his custodial interrogation is not required. He further submitted that
petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel, who appears on receipt
of advance copy of the paperbook, has vehemently opposed the prayer
for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He submitted that there
are specific allegations against the petitioner. He further submitted that
except instant FIR, one more case bearing FIR No.217 dated
08.10.2022 under Sections 325, 341, 323 IPC is pending against the
petitioner at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur. He
submitted that petitioner is a habitual offender, therefore, he does not
deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
6. Petitioner is alleged to have given multiple kirpan blows
on the person of the complainant thereby causing grievous injuries to
him. Besides this, petitioner has concealed the fact of his involvement
in another case bearing FIR No.217 dated 08.10.2022 under Sections
325, 341, 323 IPC registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District
Sangrur. It is a well-settled proposition of law that a person who does not
approach the Court with clean hands and played fraud with the Court, is
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056581
CRM-M-19278 of 2023
2023:PHHC:056581
not entitled for any relief. Reference in this regard can be made to the
judgments in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and others - JT 2009 (15) SC
201: (2010) 2 SCC 114 and Amar Singh v. Union of India and others,
WP(C) No.39/06 decided on 11.05.2011.
7. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 Supreme
Court Cases 171, power exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is
somewhat extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised only in
exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely
implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a
person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his/her
liberty.
8. In Bal Krishan Fauzdar v. State of Haryana 2018 (1)
RCR Criminal 789, it is held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
para No. 8 as under: -
"........It is well settled that custodial interrogation is more
elicitation oriented since a person, who is couched in
comparative safety of pre-arrest bail would certainly not
disclose all the facts within his knowledge which would be
inculpatory for him. In case custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is denied to the investigating agency that would
leave many loose ends and gaps in the investigation
affecting the investigation being carried out adversely,
which is not called for."
9. Reliance can be placed upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court
dictum passed in Prem Shankar Prasad v. The State of Bihar and
another, 2021(4) RCR (Crl.) 598 and Anil Kumar Singh v. High
Court of Judicature at Patna through its Registrar General and
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056581
CRM-M-19278 of 2023
2023:PHHC:056581
another, (2020)19 Supreme Court Cases 364 whereby the Hon'ble
Apex Court had denied the concession of anticipatory bail in view of
the gravity of offences and the conduct of the petitioner.
10. The allegations are serious in nature. Custodial
interrogation of the petitioner may provide information leading to
discovery of material facts. Curtailing of his freedom is necessary in
order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to
protect witnesses.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of
the considered view that petitioner cannot prima facie be said to have
been falsely enroped in the crime and his custodial interrogation is
necessary in the case and that petitioner is likely to abscond and misuse
his liberty and does not deserve grant of anticipatory bail.
12. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed.
13. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
20.04.2023 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056581
5 of 5
