Punjab-Haryana High Court
Angad vs State Of Haryana on 2 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044126
CRM-M-8370-2024 #1# 2024:PHHC:044126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-8370-2024
Date of Decision:-02.04.2024
Angad.
......Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Haryana.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. A.K. Ranolia, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The prayer in this petition under Section 438 Cr.PC is for the
grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.154 dated 20.08.2023 under
Sections 34, 379-B and 506 IPC (Section 323 IPC added later on) registered
at Police Station Tigaon, District Faridabad, Haryana.
2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Hariom
which reads as under:-
" To, the SHO, Police Station: Tigaon, Sir, It is submitted that
I, Hariom son of Sh. Roshan, Resident of Fajarpur, Police Station:
Girauh, District-Mainpuri, U.P., presently residing at Sabband
Liquor Shop, Village-Chirsi. I, Manoj, resident of Village
Mandhawali, I have been working as a salesman at Liquor Shop at
Village-Chirsi for about two months. On 18.08.23, I was present at my
above mentioned Liquor Shop, during this time at around 09:30 PM,
Angad son of son of Ranjeet and Babu @ Sumit son of Ratan, resident
of Village-Chirsi came to me and Angad asked me to give him a cold
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044126
CRM-M-8370-2024 #2# 2024:PHHC:044126
beer. I told him that the beer is not cold. Angad said to take out the
beer and show it, which I took out the beer from the fridge and gave it
to Angad. Angad told me that this beer is hot, put it back. When I
started putting the beer back in the fridge, Angad's friend Babu held
my neck from behind and hit me on the head at several places with a
brick and Babu kicked me, hit me with punches and Babu and Angad
pushed me and made me fall down and Angad kept Rs. 10,500 from
sale of liquor in the chest box, Babu kept it near the box and picked up
my mobile phone. Babu and Angad took the above money and my
mobile phone and ran away from the spot. Who threatened me while
leaving that if I reported anywhere, they would kill me. Angad and
Babu had a TVS motorcycle at that time. Thereafter I informed Manoj
about this incident to Manoj through phone, then who took me for
treatment at Govt. Hospital Ballabgarh. Where doctor treated me and
cut my MLR and referred me to BK Faridabad Hospital, I got CT
Scan of my injury done at Manavta Hospital Ballabgarh, till now I
kept getting my injury treated, now I am come for the report. Legal
action be taken against the Angad and Babu. Sd/- Hariom."
3. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that he has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The alleged occurrence took place on
18.08.2023 at about 9.30 pm whereas the FIR was registered on 20.08.2023
after an inordinate delay of 02 days. The CCTV footage of the liquor vend
had not been taken into possession to establish the veracity of the
prosecution case. In fact it was a financial dispute between the petitioner
and the complainant which had led to the false implication of the petitioner.
As the petitioner was ready and willing to join investigation, he was entitled
to the concession of anticipatory bail.
4. The Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that the
petitioner and his co-accused were duly named in the FIR. Specific
allegations have been levelled against them. The petitioner is stated to have
taken away Rs.10,500/- from the chest box. Therefore, as the offence was
prima facie established and the investigation was to be taken to its logical
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044126
CRM-M-8370-2024 #3# 2024:PHHC:044126
conclusion the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary and
hence the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
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 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044126
CRM-M-8370-2024 #4# 2024:PHHC:044126
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 custodial interrogation is not required or
necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail".
7. A perusal of the FIR would show that clear and specific
allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and his co-accused. The
accused including the petitioner snatched the mobile phone of the
complainant as well as the cash amount of Rs.10,500/-. The custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is certainly required to effect recovery of the
money, mobile phone as well as the motor cycle used in the commission of
the offence. Even otherwise, the offence stands prima facie established from
the FIR and the investigation conducted so far. Therefore, the petitioner is
not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
8. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and
the same stands dismissed.
9. However, the observations made hereinabove 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 )
JUDGE
April 02, 2024
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
