Munesh vs State Of Haryana
2024 Latest Caselaw 8666 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Munesh vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2024

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058255




CRM M-1253 of 2024 (O&M)                   2024:PHHC:058255          -1-




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

105+229                         CRM M-1253 of 2024 (O&M)
                                Date of Decision: 24.04.2024

Munesh                                                        ...Petitioner
                                Versus
State of Haryana                                         ... Respondent

CORAM :      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT

Present :   Mr. K.S.Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner.

            Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana.


N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section

439 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant a regular bail in case FIR

No.463 dated 29.06.2023 registered under Sections 302 and 34 IPC

at Police Station City Narnaul, District Narnaul.

2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of

the complaint filed by Inspector Sharda and the same is reproduced

below:-

"To the SHO Police Station Narnaul City.

Sir it is submitted that on 29.06.2023 at about 12:50

AM, ASI Satish Kumar No. 59/NNL brought the accused

Panchsheela De D/o Pranav De r/o Janama Hubli West

Bengal, presently residing at 67A Chandan Vihar, New

Delhi to the Women Police Station, Narnaul after

arresting in the FIR No. 112 dated 23.06.2023 under

1 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058255

CRM M-1253 of 2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058255 -2-

section 379 and 420 IPC registered at Police Station,

City Kanina. DDR No. 2 dated 29.06.2023 was got

registered in this regard. The accused was put under the

surveillance of L/CT Munesh No. 156/NNL PS Kanina,

L/CT Priyanka No 761/NNL, Police Line, Narnaul and

SPO Mahipal No. 271/NNL was on the guard duty. At

around 6:50 AM, the Complainant Sharda,

Inspector/SHO Police Station Women Narnaul received

a telephonic information by LAST Shakuntla No.

829/NNL about accused Panchsheela De that the

accused tried to flee at around 4:50 AM who was

prevented by both of the police officials along with SPO

Mahipal No. 271/NNI, where a scuffle took place. On

worsening the condition of the accused, she was taken to

GH Narnaul where she was declared as dead by the

medical officer. The accused died due to the injuries

inflicted by the police officials and others. The son of the

accused namely Royas aged 2.5 years was also with the

accused at that time. The legal action must be taken

against the aforesaid accused. The information of the

aforesaid incident was given to the higher police

officials through telephone.

SD/INSP SHARDA/"-

2 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058255

CRM M-1253 of 2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058255 -3-

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

Panchsheela De, an accused was confined in Police Station Women,

Narnaul, after she was formally arrested by the police for an offence.

At about 04.11 a.m., on 29.06.2023, she bolted the door of the room,

wherein four lady constables, including the present petitioner were

present, took a stick (danda) and tried to escape from the police

station. SPO Mahipal, who was present outside the room, tried to stop

her from escaping from the police station and on hearing his noise,

other police officials also woke up and they unlocked the door of the

four lady constables. A scuffle had taken place between Panchsheela

De, accused and SPO Mahipal and thereafter all the four lady

constables tried to control Panchsheela De. Panchsheela De had

slapped, Mahipal, SPO, on this, SPO, took a Danda and caused

beatings to her in order to control her. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that even though the petitioner was present in the

police station, but there is no allegation that the petitioner had caused

any injury to Panchsheela De and she was wrongly arrested in the

present case on 29.06.2023 itself.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in

the present case most of the material witnesses have already been

examined and there are no chances of tampering with prosecution

evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the

testimony of PW3 Dr. Amit Kumar, Medical Officer, Government

Hospital, Narnaul, who was part of the board of doctors, who had

3 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058255

CRM M-1253 of 2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058255 -4-

conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of

Panchsheela De. As per the said doctor, the following injuries were

suffered by Panchsheela De:-

"(I) Multiple, reddiesh blue coloured contusions of size

ranging from 6 cm x 2 cm to 12 cm x 3 cm present all

over both buttocks, back of both thighs, outer aspects of

both thighs, outer half of front of both thighs. On fine

dissection of contusions there was massive extravasation

of blood in subcutaneous tissue and muscular tissues. On

cut section large amount of blood was oozing.

(II) Reddish blue contusion of size 10 cm x 6 cm

present over left side chest, over anterior axillary fold".

5. As per the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death in the

present case was shock as a result of antemortem injuries sustained to

multiple body parts caused by blunt force impact.

6. Learned counsel has extensively referred to the

cross-examination conducted by the learned defence counsel on PW3

Dr. Amit Kumar and the said doctor had clearly admitted that there

was no injury on the vital organ of the body. Still further, in the

present case, none of the injury mentioned in the postmortem report

was individually responsible for causing the death. In ordinary course

of nature, none of the injury mentioned in the PMR was sufficient to

cause death individually. Thus, learned counsel submits that even

from the ocular account as well as from the medical evidence, it stood

4 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058255

CRM M-1253 of 2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058255 -5-

established that the accused had no intention to commit the murder of

Panchsheela De and the injuries were caused by certain other police

officials, just to prevent her from escaping from the lawful custody of

the police station. He further contends that in the present case, even

after the examination of 12 witnesses, the prosecution has not been

able to produce any witnesses, who could prove the complicity of the

petitioner in the commission of the crime. Rather, from the

testimonies of various prosecution witnesses, which were placed on

record, it was evident that the participation of the petitioner in the

alleged commission was highly doubtful and she had no reason to

cause the death of Panchsheela De, since deceased. Learned counsel

further contends that the petitioner is a young and rustic villager and

is an unmarried girl. She was recruited as a Constable in Haryana

Police on 06.03.2019 and had been performing her duties as per law

and there was no allegation against her and was never involved in any

criminal activity in the past. Even, no complaint was ever received by

the higher police officers against her. Apart from that, since the

material witnesses had already been examined, there were no chances

of tampering with the prosecution evidence and she was not likely to

flee from the process of the law. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to

concession of bail by this Court.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently

opposed the submissions made by the petitioner on the ground that

very serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and

5 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058255

CRM M-1253 of 2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058255 -6-

her co-accused, who had caused serious injuries to Panchsheela De

and she succumbed to the injuries suffered by her in police custody.

Still further, the petitioner was posted in the same police station and

had actively participated in the crime. Thus, she does not deserve the

concession of bail by this Court.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

9. In the present case, no doubt, the allegations levelled by

the prosecution point towards the seriousness of the allegations, but

apart from the seriousness of the offence, a Court has to take into

account various other considerations, viz., circumstances in which the

offence was committed; character of the evidence; circumstances

which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable apprehension of

witnesses being influenced; evidence being tampered with and larger

interest of the public or State etc.,. In fact, so many variable factors

and the consideration weigh with the Court, which cannot be

exhaustively set out. However, apart from seriousness of the offence,

two considerations are paramount and the same are (a) the likelihood

of the accused fleeing from the justice and (b) likelihood of accused

tampering with the prosecution evidence and Court has to bestow due

and proper weight on these two factors. In case, the Court comes to

the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the

accused would not flee from the justice and will not tamper with the

6 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058255

CRM M-1253 of 2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058255 -7-

prosecution evidence, he can be granted the bail in such cases after

suffering a sufficient long custody.

10. Apart from that, the object of the bail is to secure the

attendance of the accused at the trial. The principle rule to guide the

release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant to

take a judgment and to serve the sentence in the event of the Court

punishing him with the imprisonment and the Court have always

deprecated the longer period of incarceration facing trial.

11. In the present case, the petitioner, who is young

unmarried girl was recently employed in Haryana Police and no

complaint was ever received against her in the past. Even, Dr. Amit

Kumar, Medical Officer clearly stated in his cross-examination that

there was no injury on any of the vital organ of the body of

Panchsheela De, since deceased. As per the said doctor, none of the

injury mentioned in the PMR was individually responsible for causing

the death and in the ordinary course of nature, none of the injury

mentioned in the PMR was sufficient to cause death individually.

Apart from that, at this stage, the prosecution is under an obligation to

prove the conclusive evidence during the course of the trial to show

that the petitioner had the intention to cause the murder of

Panchsheela De, in order to sustain the charge against her. However,

at this stage, the prosecution has not been able to indicate any

material to suggest that the petitioner may flee from the process of

justice or may tamper with the prosecution evidence.

7 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058255

CRM M-1253 of 2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058255 -8-

12. In view of the above, without commenting any further on

the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered

to be released on bail on her furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned

subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

(ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself from the Court proceedings except on the prior permission of the Court concerned.

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, (if already not surrendered), and in case he is not holder of the same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect.

(v) The petitioner shall also file his affidavit before the concerned Court, mentioning his ordinary place of residence and number of mobile phone, which shall be used by him during the pendency of the trial. In case of change of place of residence/mobile number, he shall share the details with the concerned Court/learned Trial Court.

(vi) In case, the petitioner is involved in any other criminal activity, during the pendency of the trial, it shall be viewed seriously.

(vii) The concerned Court may insist on two heavy local sureties

8 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058255

CRM M-1253 of 2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058255 -9-

and may also impose any other condition, in accordance with law, while accepting the bails bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner.

(viii) The petitioner shall report on every 1st Monday of English calender month to the concerned SHO till the conclusion of the trial and SHO shall mark his presence by making an entry in the Rojnamcha.

In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions

mentioned above, it shall be viewed seriously and the concession of

bail granted to her shall be liable to be cancelled and the prosecution

shall be at liberty to move an application in this regard.

24.04.2024                            (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana                                   JUDGE
             Whether reasoned/speaking :      Yes/No
             Whether reportable          :    Yes/No




                                   9 of 9