Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod vs State Of Haryana on 9 April, 2024
2024:PHHC:051753
CRM-M-17599-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(105) CRM-M-17599-2024
Date of Decision:- 09.04.2024
Vinod
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
****
Present: Mr. Shubham Kaushik, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
****
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petitioner has been filed under section 438
Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR
No.255 dated 16.04.2020 under Section 302 of IPC, registered at Police
Station City Hisar, District Hisar, Haryana, as the petitioner has been
summoned only under Section 193. 201, 218, 466, 120-B of IPC vide
order dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) on an application under Section
319 Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner after taking this Court
through the summoning order has opened his arguments by submitting
that the petitioner was posted at Police Station Anaj Mandi Hisar as
Station House Officer and, in fact, one ASI Ravinder Kumar was the
first Investigating Officer. The present petitioner reached at the place of
occurrence only after the inquest proceedings were completed by ASI
Ravinder Kumar. The petitioner accompanied the then DSP (Head
2024:PHHC:051753
CRM-M-17599-2024
Quarters) Ashok Kumar and they left the place of the alleged
commission of crime immediately after verification and giving necessary
instructions to the concerned officials. It is submitted that the trial
Court while summoning the petitioner has relied upon the departmental
inquiry initiated against the petitioner, however, submits that the
allegations against the petitioner are baseless and vexatious. Regarding
the injuries suffered by the deceased Rinku, an opinion was obtained
from a Doctor from General Hospital, Hisar on 21.04.2020 regarding the
wooden stick (mogra) found on the spot. The case property was
deposited in FSL, Madhuban and MAMC Agroha, the statements of
witnesses recorded and after completion of investigation, the challan was
presented against the accused-Vikram.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a Lie
Detector test conducted on one of the co-accused also does not point any
finger towards the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner
was the one who sought opinion qua the matter from the Medical
Officer, General Hospital, Hisar, as to whether the injury could have
been caused by the wooden stick or not. The counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Medical report so received only opined that the
possibility of the wooden stick being an additional weapon of offence
cannot be ruled out. The commitment of the petitioner to conduct a free,
fair and transparent investigation was above board and he followed the
procedure established by law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
learned Court below while considering the application under Section 319
of Cr.P.C. has returned the findings against the petitioner, which are also
2024:PHHC:051753
CRM-M-17599-2024
contrary to law and, hence, the petitioner deserves the concession of
anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed
the grant of the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner and submits that the evidence brought in before the trial court
against the petitioner being substantial and sufficient fulfills the rigors
of Section 319 Cr.P.C and and more so, there is no challenge to the said
order/application so allowed. He submits that as per the summoning
order (Annexure P-7), the accused was the Investigating Officer, who
had been given the investigation after the same was allegedly botched up
by the first Investigating Officer ASI Ravinder Kumar, who was none
other than his subordinate official. Admittedly, the petitioner went with
the DSP (Head Quarter) Ashok Kumar and was duty bound to conduct a
fair investigation, however, when he became the Investigating officer,
the petitioner did not make any attempt to find the empty cartridges at
the scene of crime and the stand of the petitioner that he was unaware of
the fire arm used in the commission of the offence is ludicrous.
6. It is a case where the incident took place four years ago, i.e.
on 16.04.2020 and it has taken a long duration to bring out the truth,
which was sought to be eclipsed up by the apparent loopholes and mala
fide investigation carried out by the police officials. An official of the
rank of SHO being not able to find out that whether the murder was
committed by a wood-stick or a fire-arm raises serious doubts on the
competency of the petitioner as a police official.
7. In the present case, different police officials have left no
stone unturned in spoiling up the entire investigation which is not only
2024:PHHC:051753
CRM-M-17599-2024
hampering the trust of a common man in the police but is also delaying
the trial. The petitioner apparently seems to be part of the conspiracy to
derail the investigation and all these facets have been looked into by the
trial Court before summoning him.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner had no role to play and did not conspire to compromise the
evidence as is alleged to have been done by ASI Kuldeep Singh and DSP
Kaptan Singh.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
have perused the record. The petitioner being the second investigating
officer in the case was also the SHO of a Police Station and apparently,
he was unable to diligently perform his duties for which departmental
proceedings have also been initiated against him.
10. More so, the parameters for granting the extraordinary
concession of anticipatory bail to a Police Official viz-a-viz any other
citizen are far different. It is presumed that a police officer will act in a
manner above board and for the said view, this Court finds support from
the dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Jharkhand
V/s Sandeep Kumar" in SLP (Crl.) No. 10499 of 2023, the relevant
extract of which is reproduced as under:
"9. In the light of these serious allegations made against no
less than a senior police officer, an essential cog in the
machinery of law enforcement, the High Court ought not to
have taken a liberal view in the matter for the mere asking.
Considering the position held by the respondent, even if he
was suspended from service and the chargesheet had
already been filed against him, the possibility of his
2024:PHHC:051753
CRM-M-17599-2024
tampering with the witnesses and the evidence was
sufficiently high. That apart, grant of such relief to a police
officer facing allegations of manipulating the investigation
so as to favour an accused would send out a wrong signal
in society. It would be against public interest.
10. No doubt, none of the provisions under which the
respondent is alleged to have committed offences entail
imprisonment in excess of seven years and most of them
were bailable offences. Ordinarily, an accused facing the
prospect of incarceration, if proved guilty of such offences,
would be entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail. However,
the same standard would not be applicable when the
accused is the Investigating Officer, a police officer
charged with the fiduciary duty of carrying forward the
investigation to its rightful conclusion so as to punish the
guilty. The respondent is alleged to have failed in this
fundamental duty as a police officer. This consideration
must necessarily weigh in with the nature of the offences
and the possible punishment therefor. Presumptions and
other considerations applicable to a layperson facing
criminal charges may not carry the same weight while
dealing with a police officer who is alleged to have abused
his office".
11. As regards the argument of the counsel for the petitioner
that nothing has to be recovered from the petitioner and hence, he should
be granted the concession of anticipatory bail, the same does not carry
any weight as the allegations against the petitioner are that he has been
instrumental in the tampering with the material evidence and his custody
is absolutely required by the authorities to uncover the truth in the
present case.
2024:PHHC:051753
CRM-M-17599-2024
12. In the case of "C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma" (1997) 7 SCC 187,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the
accused by the High Court by observing that custodial interrogation is
qualitatively more elicitation orientated then questioning a subject who
seeks anticipatory bail.
13. A perusal of the above judgment and coupled with the fact
that it cannot be ruled out that:-
(i) the petitioner would not influence the witnesses or,
(ii) tamper with the evidence or,
(iii) create obstruction in the proper administration of
justice.
Thus, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
imperative given the circumstances of the present case and for proper
dispensation of justice and the fact that nothing is to be recovered from
the petitioner becomes inconsequential in deciding the present petition.
14. In light of the above discussion, I do not find that the
petitioner has been able to carve out a case for exercising the grant of the
extra-ordinary concession of anticipatory bail. More so, the anticipatory
bail of first investigating officer Ravinder also stands dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(ALOK JAIN)
April 9, 2024 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
