Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rohit Kumar Alias Prema vs State Of Punjab on 19 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052548
CRM-M-17506-2024 #1# 2024:PHHC:052548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-17506-2024
Date of Decision:-19.04.2024
Rohit Kumar @ Prema.
......Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Sumit Dua, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab.
***
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.10 dated 26.01.2024 under Sections
307, 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on)
registered at Police Station Division No.7, Jalandhar.
2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Robit
Atwal which reads as under:-
" Statement of Robin Atwal S/o Vijay Kumar R/o house no.4,
Phagwari Mohalla Gara Jalandhar Age 28 years, Mobile 85590-75528 has
stated that I am resident of the said address and I work as a tent worker. On
25.01.2024 at 7:30 PM I came to inquire about my brother's daughter in
front of Vikram Hospital Gara SGL Hospital where I went to get a box of
sweets from the hospital at Gara Dayanand Chowk on my Activa. Where My
friend Bharat called me and told me to take me to the hospital. On which I
took my activa and I along with my younger brother Rishabh to Dayanand
Chowk. When I was going from Dayanand Chowk to Tara chand Colony
road Gara on my Activa with my younger brother Rishabh and when I
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052548
CRM-M-17506-2024 #2# 2024:PHHC:052548
reached near the shop of Puppy scrap dealer, where the first motorcycle
riding was Rohit Kumar alias Prema resident of Gara holding Gandasa,
Dilkhush resident of Garha holding Kirpan, Sachin resident of Raj Nagar
Jalandhar carrying Datar, Maninder resident of Garha, Jail Chowk
Jalandhar and Bagga S/O Tannu resident of Mohalla No. 30 Jalandhar
Cantt who were standing with them on their bullet motorcycle along with
many unknown youths. Rohit kumar@ Prema hit me with a Gandase in his
hand which hit me on my right kneecap and second time Dilkhush resident
Garha hit me on my head with his hand kirpan. Which hit my forehead on
the front side of my head and Sachin resident of Rajnagar Jalandhar hit my
head with sickle hold in his hand which hit on my head. Maninder resident
of jail chowk Jalandhar slapped me. Bagga S/o Tannu resident of Jalandhar
cant. tried to force me to sit on the bullet motorcycle and I screamed that
they have killed me. After that Shetty and Vaisakhi of garha came forward
to save me and all of them ran away from the spot on their motorbikes with
their weapons after injured me. My family members arranged a ride and
took me to civil hospital. Where doctor prepared my MLR. The grudge is
that there are cases of fights/quarrel between me and my family members
and who has attacked on me with intention to kill me. Legal action should
be taken against all of them."
3. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case. The occurrence allegedly took
place on 05.01.2024 whereas the FIR came to be registered on 26.01.2024.
The information regarding the nature of the injury was obtained much later.
Even otherwise, the injury attributed to the petitioner was on a non vital of
the body i.e. the knee. As he was ready and willing to join the investigation,
he was entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
4. The Counsel for the State on the other hand has filed short reply
dated 19.04.2024 by way of affidavit of Mr. Harjinder Singh, PPS, Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Model Town, Jalandhar in the court today, which is
taken on record. While referring the said reply, he contends that the
petitioner is the man accused having caused the grievous injury i.e. a
fracture of the right knee joint on the person of the complainant. Therefore,
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052548
CRM-M-17506-2024 #3# 2024:PHHC:052548
the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner did not entitle him
to the concession of bail, moreso when he was a habitual offender with
multiple cases pending against him.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
6. The relevant extract of the reply of the State dated 19.04.2024 is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
" 6. That injury no.1 was declared sharp in nature, injury no.2
was declared light sharp and injury no.3,4,and 5 were declared
blunt in nature and out of said injuries injury no.1 was kept for
Ortho opinion, injury no.2 was kept for X-ray Right forearm,
Injury no.5 for Advice X-Ray-Skull.
7. That after X-ray of skull, opinion was given by Dr.
Mohinder Partap Singh Radiologist vide no. MPS/58/CHJ/2024
and it was opined that "The NCCT Head shows grossly normal
study for the concerned injury. Hence the concerned injury is
declared simple in nature."
8. That upon "x-ray of right knee joint AP/Lat shows the
fracture of patella bone of right knee joint is seen for the
concerned injury. Hence the concerned injury is declared as
grievous in nature". That as injury no.1 was declared grievous
hence offence u/s 326 IPC was added in present FIR vide DDR
No.18 dated 29-02-2024.
9. That upon x-ray of right forearm AP/Lat shows no bony
injury seen for the concerned injury. Hence the concerned injury
is declared simple in nature.
10. That petitioner has inflicted injury no.1 on right knee of
complainant and said injury was declared grievous in nature as
such petitioner does not deserve any leniency from this Hon'ble
Court thus present petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. That petitioner is having criminal antecedents and following
other FIRs are registered against petitioner: -
1. FIR NO. 35 DT 28.02.2018 U/S 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC PS.
DIV NO. 07 JAL
2. FIR NO. 36 DT 19.03.2019 U/S 323, 354-A, 148, 149 IPC PS
DIV NO. 07 JAL
3. FIR NO. 237 DT 10.09.2020 U/S 323, 324, 452, 148, 149 IPC
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052548
CRM-M-17506-2024 #4# 2024:PHHC:052548
PS. DIV NO. 07 JAL
4. FIR NO. 68 DT 12.05.2023 U/S 452, 427, 323, 160, 148, 149
IPC PS DIV NO. 07 JAL
5. FIR NO. 06 DT 17.01.2024 U/S 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC
PS.DIV NO. 07 JAL
6. FIR NO. 44 DT 01.04.2021 U/S 307, 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC
PS DIV NO. 07 JAL.
7. 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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052548
CRM-M-17506-2024 #5# 2024:PHHC:052548
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 custodial interrogation is not required or
necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail".
7. Apparently, the injury attributed to the petitioner has caused a
fracture of the patella a bone of the right knee joint which injury has been
declared to be grievous in nature and punishable under Section 326 IPC.
Further the petitioner is a habitual offender with as many as 06 cases of
similar nature pending against him. Even otherwise the offence stands
prima facie established. Therefore, in order to take the investigation to the
logical conclusion the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly
required.
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 19, 2024
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
