Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdeep vs State Of Haryana on 22 November, 2023
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148735
2023:PHHC:148735
CRM-M-51522-2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-51522-2023
Date of Decision : November 22, 2023
Jagdeep
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Amit Khatkar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjeev Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Sections 438 Cr.P.C. is
for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR
No.537 dated 21.9.2023, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325,
341 and 506 IPC at Police Station Rania, District Sirsa.
2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Ram
Niwas son of Udey Ram r/o Sultanpuria aged about 42 years Mobile
No.99915-71563 and reads as under :-
"that I am a resident of the above address and run a
grocery shop in village Sultanpuriya. On dated
13.09.2023, I had gone from my home to Rania Tehsil
driving my motor cycle no HR 44S-8698 to bring my
wife Rajbala from Rania Tehsil. At about 5 pm. when I
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148735
2023:PHHC:148735
reached near Inter-Lock Brick Factory, Sultanpuria-
Rania Road, they came from the front and stopped my
motorcycle and Jagdeep alias Jaggu and Raju sons of
Darshan Singh Majhabi Sikh residents of Sultanpuria
and Bunty son of unknown resident of Nanuana Road,
Rania along with 3 other boys came. Two boys caught
me. Jagdeep took a rod like iron rod in his hand and hit
me on my right leg, then Raju took a stick in his hand
and hit me on the back of my head, then Bunty also
abused and kicked me. Then I fell down. Raju took out
8 thousand rupees from my pocket. Then Raju took out
the gold ring I was wearing on my finger. Then
Jagdeep scared me by taking out a pistol from his
pants, which seems to be as unlicensed pistol.
Thereafter, I shouted and on seeing the passers-by
coming, Jagdeep, Raju, Bunty and 3 others ran away
from the spot with their weapons and sticks and rods.
While running, they stated that I got saved today but
will be eliminated in case I would come before them in
future. Thereafter my wife Rajbala came to the spot
after getting the information and arranged the facilities
and took me to CHC Rania for treatment. The doctor
there referred me to Government Hospital Sirsa and got
X- ray and CT scan done in Government Hospital
Sirsa. On 14.09.2023, my wife brought me from
Government Hospital Sirsa to Satguru Pratap Singh
Sirsa for better treatment. I am undergoing treatment at
Satguru Pratap Singh Sirsa. The motive behind the
occurrence is that Jagdish had abused me two days
before this fight. Legal action should be taken against
the above accused Raju, Jagdeep, Bunty and three
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148735
2023:PHHC:148735
others. I have got recorded my statement, read it and
found to be correct. Sd/- Ram Niwas. Attested Vijay
Singh HC, PS Rania, dated 18.09.2023. Police
proceedings:..."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Very vague and
broad allegations have been levelled by the complainant to implicate a
number of persons. There was a delay of 08 days in filing of the FIR. The
occurrence took place on 13.9.2023, whereas the complaint was filed on
18.9.2023 and ultimately the FIR was lodged only on 21.9.2023. This delay
was fatal to the prosecution case. Even from the investigation, the allegations
of a pistol being pointed at the complainant and snatching of the gold ring
were not found to be correct. As the petitioner had joined the investigation
and had cooperated with the same, he was entitled to the concession of
anticipatory bail.
4. The status report by way of affidavit dated 20.11.2023 of the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ellenabad has been filed and the same is
taken on record. While referring to the same, the learned State counsel along
with the counsel for the complainant, contend that it was incorrect to state
that the FIR had been registered after a delay of 08 days. In fact, the
occurrence had taken place on 13.9.2023. The police proceedings would
reveal that on the very same day, information has been received by the police
officials who chose not to go to the hospital as they were busy in other
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148735
2023:PHHC:148735
duties. It was in that situation that the statement was made to the
Investigating Agency on 18.9.2023 leading to the registration of the FIR on
21.9.2023. As per the medical evidence on record, the complainant had
received a fracture of the tibia and two metal rods had to be inserted on the
conducting of an operation. Even today, the injured was unable to walk
properly. They also contend that though the petitioner had joined the
investigation, that fact by itself does not entitle him to the grant of
anticipatory bail, looking into the seriousness of the allegations, and the
manner in which the offence was committed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Sumitha
Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Livelaw (SC) 870'', has
held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by
itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the
foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to
consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant
extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
" It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has
already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part
that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent
No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further
investigation.
Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where
Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148735
2023:PHHC:148735
interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought
not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory
bail.
We are dealing with a matter wherein the original
complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court
praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High
Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in
other words, the complainant says that the High Court
wrongly exercised its discretion while granting
anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime
like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High
Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be
quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters,
we have noticed one common argument being canvassed
that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore,
anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a
serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial
interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that
alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant
aspects to be considered along with other grounds while
deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There
may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation
of the accused may not be required, but that does not
mean that the prima facie case against the accused
should be ignored or overlooked and he should be
granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing
that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application
should consider is the prima facie case put up against
the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should
be looked into along with the severity of the punishment.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to
decline custodial interrogation. However, even if
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148735
2023:PHHC:148735
custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by
itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail".
7. In the instant case, as is apparent, there is absolutely no delay in
the registration of the FIR. The petitioner is the main accused. The injury
attributed to the petitioner on the person of the complainant led to a fracture
of the tibia. An operation had to be conducted and rods had to be inserted.
Even at this point in time, the injured is unable to walk properly. Therefore,
the allegations levelled against the petitioner are indeed extremely grave.
Merely because he had joined the investigation would not in itself entitle the
petitioner to the grant of anticipatory bail once the offence has been prima
facie established.
8. In view of the serious nature of the allegations and the fact that
the offence prima facie stands established, I find no ground to grant the
concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, therefore, the present
petition stands dismissed.
9. However, the observations made here-in-above are only for the
purposes of deciding this anticipatory bail petition and the Trial Court is free
to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence lead before it
uninfluenced by any such observations made.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
November 22, 2023 JUDGE
satish
Whether speaking/reasoned : YES / NO
Whether reportable : YES / NO
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148735
6 of 6
