Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Singh Alias Gurman vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049219
2024:PHHC:049219
CRM-M-13106-2024 (O & M) ::1::
(213)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13106-2024 (O & M)
Date of decision:09.04.2024
Hardeep Singh @ Gurman ...... Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. N.S. Kamboj, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is
for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.11 dated
07.02.2024 under Sections 379-B, 341 and 34 IPC registered at Police
Station Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga.
2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Sarban
Singh son of Ganga Singh and reads as under:-
"Statement of Sarban Singh son of Ganga Singh son of
Sohan Singh resident of Kotli Malian, Tehsil and District
Amritsar aged about 58 years Mob no. 99293-58191. Stated
that I am resident of the above address I am having one son and
05 daughters. My son Jagraj Singh was died about one year
ago and now I am working as a driver in Naurang Transport in
Kot Ise Khan on canter number PB-05-AN-6755 since last 6
months. I am going alone in the canter from Bani Dairy, Kot Ise
Khan to Modern Dairy, Karnal Haryana On dated 07.02.2014
as usual on having 18340 Ltrs milk in the canter has started
from Kot Ise Khan to Karnal at 01.00 AM. When I reached
ahead of Himmatpura towards Barnala side then from Moga
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049219
2024:PHHC:049219
CRM-M-13106-2024 (O & M) ::2::
Side one Mahindra Pick up has come across me then I run my
canter with speed Then driver of the Mahendra Pick up has
stopped the vehicle in front of my canter. He has asked me to
open the window. In the meantime from the vehicle three person
came out and after coming has tried to open both the windows
and after open the window has hooked me and with the
intention to snatching the vehicle I was removed from (driver)
seat and keep on sitting the seat and after having the tanker
aside has taken out the milk and Rs 700/- from my purse and
also taken out some diesel from the tank. Then after closing me
in the window and all of them has run away in the Mahendra
Pick up vehicle. Then I, having fear, has started my canter and
after some distance I have given call to my owner Ram Lubhaya
and told the whole story and on asking of the owner, I have
taken my canter to village Phagguwala centre Sangrur then
after going to centre, I have scaled the milk taken out by them
then it is found 1860 Ltrs milk and 100 Ltrs of diesel has
snatched by the persons Mahendra pick up vehicle. Now I was
coming to you along with my owner to record the statement.
You met. Statement recorded, heard it is correct. Action may be
taken against unknown persons Sd- /- Rarban Singh the above
verified by Sd/- Ram Lubhaya son of Kasori Ram resident of
Kot Ise Khan. Dated 07.02.2024 Attested by Sd/- Jaswant Singh
ASI PP Bilaspur P.S. Nihal Singh Wala dated 07.02.2024
ΧΧΧ.... "
3. During the course of investigation, the statement of Ram
Lubhaya, the owner of the canter bearing No.PB-05AN-6755 came to be
recorded to the effect that as per their own enquiry, Hardeep Singh @
Gurman (petitioner) and Binder Singh @ Gora have committed the offence
in question.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The registration
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049219
2024:PHHC:049219
CRM-M-13106-2024 (O & M) ::3::
number of the Mahindra pick up, the alleged vehicle used in the occurrence
has not been mentioned in the FIR and therefore, the FIR appears to be a
concocted one. It was strange that Rs.700/- and milk had been snatched but
the mobile phone of the complainant had not been snatched. In fact, the
petitioner had been busy in organizing a political rally on the day in question
and therefore, could not possibly have committed the offence. As he was
ready and willing to join the investigation, he was entitled to the concession
of anticipatory bail.
5. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has filed a
reply dated 09.04.2024 which is taken on record. While referring to the said
reply, he contends that the name of the petitioner and his co-accused/Binder
Singh @ Gora have come up during the course of investigation. Binder
Singh @ Gora had been arrested and suffered his disclosure statement to the
effect that he alongwith the petitioner and one Kalu on the intervening night
of 06/07.02.2024 had committed the offence of snatching of milk, diesel and
Rs.700/-. Therefore, it was the petitioner who was having the knowledge
about the vehicle used in the crime and how he disposed off the snatched
property. As he was the main accused, the offence was prima facie
established and the investigation was to be taken to its logical conclusion,
the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Sumitha Pradeep
Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977', 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049219
2024:PHHC:049219
CRM-M-13106-2024 (O & M) ::4::
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 anticipatory bail. The first and foremost
thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049219
2024:PHHC:049219
CRM-M-13106-2024 (O & M) ::5::
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."
8. In the instant case, the name of the petitioner and his co-
accused figured in the disclosure statement of Ram Lubhaya, the owner of
the milk canter. It has been found during the course of the investigation
based on technical inputs that the petitioner was present at the spot of the
alleged occurrence. Further, the co-accused of the petitioner who was
arrested has categorically disclosed in detail the role played by the petitioner
in the commission of the offence. As the offence stands prima facie
established and the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion, the
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly required.
9. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition.
Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
10. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this
order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application 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 09, 2024
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
