Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gaurav Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 2 June, 2023
2023:PHHC:081449
CRM-M-20345-2023 -1-
202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-20345-2023
Date of Decision: 02.06.2023
Gaurav Kumar ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG, Haryana.
*****
HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.105 dated
12.02.2023, registered under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') at Police Station Assandh,
Karnal (Annexure P-1)
2. Upon issuance of notice in this case, status report by way of an
affidavit of Sandeep Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Assandh,
District Karnal, on behalf of respondent-State of Haryana, has been filed in
the Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
3. Briefly, the above-said case FIR was registered on the
HIMANI GUPTA
2023.06.03 20:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:081449
complaint of one Naresh Kumar against Ripu @ Gaurav Kumar s/o Ramesh
(petitioner) and Prince @ Kalu s/o Anil @ Ganga, wherein it is alleged that
in the night of 09.02.2023, Surender (brother of the complainant) was near
the liquor vend at Salwan Chowk, bye-pass and the abovesaid accused
persons also came there and started abusing Surender (brother of the
complainant), when Surender opposed them, the accused persons started
giving beatings with a sharp weapon on the neck of Surender (brother of the
complainant); whereupon Surender brought forward his hand to save
himself, then his hand was cut off. Thereafter, Surender fled away from the
spot and hid himself in the liquor vend, consequently, the accused persons
went behind him and threatened to kill the brother of the complainant, in the
future. It is stated that the brother of complainant, Surender was shifted to
the hospital by the passers-by and made a phone call to the complainant. It is
further stated that from Assandh Hospital, Surender was referred to Kalpana
Chawla Hospital, then Kalpana Chawla Hospital referred him to PGI,
Chandigarh, where the doctor disclosed that his hand could not be saved.
Since his condition was serious, he was taken to a private hospital, where his
operation was conducted and after regaining consciousness, Surender
narrated the whole incident to the complainant. Accordingly, the afore-said
case FIR was registered.
4. Apprehending arrest in this case, the present petitioner
approached the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, seeking
anticipatory bail; however, the same was rejected vide order dated
22.03.2023 (Annexure P-3). Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the instant
petition before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
HIMANI GUPTA
2023.06.03 20:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:081449
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that
there is an un-explained delay of three days in lodging the FIR as the
occurrence is stated to be of 09.02.2023 and the FIR was registered only on
12.02.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not
present at the alleged place of occurrence, rather he left the place prior to the
incident and no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner. It is
further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a CCTV
recording has also been taken in custody by the Investigating Officer in
which the petitioner was not visible. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the anticipatory bail application moved by the petitioner, has
wrongly been rejected vide order dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure P-3) by the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. It is also submitted that the
petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation as and when required by
the Investigating Agency or as directed by this Court or the trial Court.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the plea of bail
sought by the petitioner on account of seriousness and gravity of the offence.
While referring to the status report, learned State counsel has submitted that
the petitioner is the main perpetrator of the crime and the petitioner along
with co-accused (Prince @ Kalu) assaulted the victim with a knife (butcher
cutter) aiming at the neck of Surender but it caused a grievous injury to his
hand which required blood transformation and surgery to the victim. It is
submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for
proper investigation and to recover weapon used in the offence. Accordingly,
prayer for dismissal of the instant petition is made.
HIMANI GUPTA
2023.06.03 20:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:081449
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone
through the paper book as well as the status report filed on behalf of the
respondent-State of Haryana.
8. Pre arrest bail is a discretionary relief and is to be granted in
exceptional cases and not in routine. It is meant to save the innocent persons
from harassment and inconvenience and not to screen the culprits from
custodial interrogation.
9. The petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and
specific role has been attributed to him that he caused grievous injury with
sharp edged weapon to the brother of the complainant. The victim (brother
of the complainant) has suffered deep injury on his hand which is stated to
have required surgery and blood transformation to victim.
10. I have gone through the FIR and am of the considered opinion
that no case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out.
11. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is definitely required
for complete and effective investigation so as to find out how the incident
was planned and executed. Recovery of weapon used in the incident is also
to be effected. 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.
12. In State represented by the C.B.I. Versus Anil Sharma, 1997(4)
R.C.R.(Criminal) 268, Hon'ble the Apex Court had observed that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than questioning a
suspect who is on anticipatory bail, in a case like this interrogation of
HIMANI GUPTA
2023.06.03 20:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:081449
suspected person is of tremendous advantage in getting useful informations.
13. In Jai Prakash Singh Versus State of Bihar and another etc.,
2012(2) RCR (Criminal) 251, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed that neither
anticipatory bail nor regular bail can be granted as a matter of rule and the
anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in
exceptional cases.
14. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the
petitioner in the present case is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail as
no exceptional circumstance has been brought forth in that regard.
Accordingly, the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.105 dated 12.02.2023,
registered under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') at Police Station Assandh, Karnal; is
dismissed.
15. Nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently
of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose
of adjudicating the present bail petition.
02.06.2023 (HARSH BUNGER)
Himani JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable : Yes/No
HIMANI GUPTA
2023.06.03 20:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
