Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bablu Pandey vs State Of Punjab on 24 January, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009637
CRM-M-62617-2023 #1# 2024:PHHC:009637
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-62617-2023
Date of Decision:-24.01.2024
Bablu Pandey.
......Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, Deputy 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.72 dated 27.07.2023 under Sections
323, 341, 452, 506, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.3,
District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana.
2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of
Durgesh Kumar Soni which reads as under:-
" Statement of Durgesh Kumar Soni Son of Ram Pher Soni,
resident of Village Maskanwa, District Goda U.P. at present tenant at
House No. B-023-10294, Street No.02 Mohalla Shivaji Nagar,
Ludhiana, age about 38 years, Mobile No. 83602-52265. Stated that I
am resident of the above-mentioned address. I have my own DJ Work
at Jalampur. I live on rent in Street No. 02, Mohalla Shivaji Nagar
Ludhiana. Bablu and his wife Nitya also reside in this house. This
house has two gates. One gate is towards Bablu's house and the other
gate is on the street. On 21-07-2023 at around 09-00 PM, I was
present in my room and our neighbor's children were repeatedly
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009637
CRM-M-62617-2023 #2# 2024:PHHC:009637
coming inside the street gate to call Bablu's children. I closed the
main gate of the street and said that you should come through the gate
affixed at another side. Meanwhile, Bablu Pandey son of Ganga
Sagar Pandey came out of the room, who started talking to me that
why have you closed the gate, we both had an argument. Bablu's wife
Nitya and my wife started fighting to each other, then Bablu started
arguing with my wife. When I stopped Bablu, Bablu started
manhandling with me. In the meantime, I gave him one slap, but
Bablu picked up my bucket and hit it to me. Then Bablu was taken
inside the room by his wife and I was also locked inside the room by
my wife. Later, I was standing outside in the street after eating food,
when it was around 09.30 PM, around 6-7 motorbikes but some 15-20
unidentified boys came by carrying Kirpans, Datar, Beswal in their
hand and empty glass bottles were in the sacks and they immediately
went to my room. Seeing all this, I ran to my brother Sarvesh Kumar's
house, who lives in the house situate next to 2- 3 houses away, entered
and locked the gate. I started looking down on the roof that they
should not beat up my children, I saw that Bablu and his wife Nitya
told them that he is at the roof. All these people later climbed up to the
roof by climbing the wall of my brother's house with help of each
other and in the meantime, one boy attacked at my head with iron
Punch, the other boy opened the gate of the house, then all 15-20
unknown boys, who had Kirpans, Datar and Beswal in their hands hit
me on the head several times. My left arm was attacked with a kirpan,
due to which I suffered a cut mark at my wrist and these unknown
boys hit me with empty glass bottles on my head. I fell down due to
suffering serious injuries. One of these unidentified boys said to shoot
it. Then they left me half dead and threatened me that now we will see
as to how you can fight with Bablu. My brother Sarvesh Kumar
arranged a private vehicle and took me to Civil Hospital Ludhiana,
where the doctors referred me to Chandigarh, Sector 32 due to severe
injuries after giving first aid. I was treated at Sector 32 Chandigarh
Hospital. Today, I was coming with my brother Sarvesh Kumar to
give information to you, so you have met us. Until now, we were
talking about compromising the matter with Bablu Pandey, which did
not succeed. Legal action should be taken against Bablu Pandey son
of Ganga Sagar Panday and 15-20 unidentified persons. Today I got
recorded my statement to you in the presence of my brother Sarvesh
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009637
CRM-M-62617-2023 #3# 2024:PHHC:009637
Kumar. Sd/-."
3. After the registration of the FIR the investigation began and the
statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. The X-Ray
report of the complainant was obtained and the doctor opined that the injury
no.2 was grievous in nature and Section 325 IPC was added in the above
said FIR vide G.D. No.19 dated 27.09.2023.
4. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that he has been falsely
implicated in the present case. There was an unexplained delay of 05 days
in the registration of the FIR. The occurrence took place on 21.07.2023
whereas the FIR was registered on 27.07.2023. Taking the allegations to be
correct the injury no.2 stated to be grievous in nature was on the wrist. As
the petitioner was ready and willing to join investigation, he was entitled to
the similar concession.
5. The Counsel for the State on the other hand has filed reply
dated 22.01.2024 by way of affidavit of Mr. Sukhnaaz Singh, Assistant
Commissioner of Police, (Central), Ludhiana, which is taken on record.
While referring to the same, he contends that the allegations against the
petitioner were grave. All the accused including the petitioner entered the
house of the brother of the complainant and committed the offences in
question. The complainant had suffered a grievous injury in the occurrence.
Therefore, the manner in which the occurrence took place along with the
injury suffered by the complainant did not entitle him to the concession as
prayed for.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
7. 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009637
CRM-M-62617-2023 #4# 2024:PHHC:009637
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
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".
8. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and his co-accused
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009637
CRM-M-62617-2023 #5# 2024:PHHC:009637
entered the house of the brother of the complainant causing him multiple
injuries including the one grievous. The manner in which the occurrence has
taken place does not entitle the petitioner to the grant of bail as the offence
stands prima facie established against him.
9. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and
the same stands dismissed.
10. 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
January 24, 2024
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009637
5 of 5
