Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukramin vs State Of Haryana on 11 March, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034976
2024:PHHC:034976
CRM-M-4551-2024 (O & M) ::1::
(213)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-4551-2024 (O & M)
Date of decision:11.03.2024
Mukramin ...... Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Anas Ahmed, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Dhruv Mittal, Advocate, for the complainant.
*****
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.243 dated
03.05.2023 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 302 and 506 IPC registered at
Police Station Sadar Nuh, District Nuh.
2. The present FIR came to be registered on the written complaint
by Sakil and reads as under:-
"To the SHO, Police Post Akera Chowki, P.S. Sadar Nuh, District
Nuh. Application for taking legal action against 1. Fateh Mo. Alias
Fattu 2. Jamsed sons of Isak 3. Sattar s/o Noor Mo. 4. Jaleb Khan
alias Jallu 5. Sahun sons of Nassar 6. Sankul 7. Mubarik sons of
Noor Mo. 8. Arsad 9. Aasind sons of Jaleb Khan alias Jallu 10.
Najmuddin 11. Alim s/o Fateh Mo. alias Fattu 12. Wasim s/o Saddik
13. Mubarik s/o Kamruddin 14. Rabin s/o Hanif 18. Najia d/o Fateh
Mo. Alias Fattu 10. Tahira w/o Jamsed and others, all residents of
village Baraka, P.S. Sadar Nuh, District Nuh. Sir, it is requested that
I, Sakil s/o Roshan am a resident of village Baraka, P.S. Sadar Nuh,
District Nuh. On 02.05.2023, in the morning at about 8:00 0'clock,
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034976
2024:PHHC:034976
CRM-M-4551-2024 (O & M) ::2::
my father Roshan visited the fields, whereupon he saw that Fateh Mo.
alias Fattu s/o Isak had cut the medh (ridge) of our field at 8:30
O'clock. At this, my father went to the house of Fateh Mo. alias Fattu
and made a complaint about it. At this, Fateh Mo. alias Fattu etc. got
enraged and they started hurling abuses at my father. My father
Roshan came back at the field silently. I was cultivating the farm. In
the meantime, Fateh Mo. alias Fattu connived with his family
members and gathered them. They arrived at the field with lathi,
danda, rod, farsa and gir, stone in their hands. As soon as he arrived,
Fateh Mo. alias Fattu shouted challenging and saying "kill him'. In
the meantime, all the aforesaid persons attacked my father Roshan.
when a noise of fight spread, Mukim, Jamaluddin, Najim and Haruni
arrived there. Accused Fateh Mo. alias Fattu hit the head of my
father Roshan with the saria (rod) which he was carrying in his hand
Jamsed hit the head of my father Roshan with the lathi which he was
carrying in his hand. Sattar hit the eyes of my father Roshan with the
danda which he was carrying in his hand. Mubarik hit the right hand
of Mukim with his lathi which he was carrying in his hand. Jaleb
Khan alias Jallu hit the right thigh of Mukim with the saria (rod)
which he was carrying in his hand. Mukarbin hit the right arm of
Jamaluddin with the rod which he was carrying in his hand. Aashid
hit near the area of Jamaluddin's ear with the lathi which he was
carrying in his hand. Robin hit the back on the shoulder of
Jamaluddin with the gid which he was carrying in his hand. Wasim
hit the thigh of Jamaluddin with the farsa from its opposite side which
he was carrying in his hand. Robin hit the right arm of Najim with the
lathi which he was carrying in his hand. Mubarik hit the right arm of
Najim with the rod which he was carrying in his hand. Alim hit the
shoulder of Najim with the rod which he was carrying in his hand
and Saikul hit Najim's shoulder with the lathi which he was carrying
in his hand, Sahira and Najia hit Haruni's mouth and teeth with the
gid which they were carrying in their hands. Najmuddin s/o Fatte Mo.
alias Fattu hit my left arm with the danda which he was carrying in
his hand. Saikul hit the left shoulder with the lathi which he was
carrying in his hand. Sahun with the danda which he was carrying in
his hand hit my hip on left side. Arsad with the stone which he was
carrying in his hand hit my koch. Aforesaid accused persons Alim etc.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034976
2024:PHHC:034976
CRM-M-4551-2024 (O & M) ::3::
beat us mercilessly. Hearing the noise of the fight, several people of
the village arrived at the spot, who saved us from the accused
persons. However, while leaving, the accused persons threatened
saying, "today you escaped, but next time if there is an opportunity
we would kill you." Accused(s) returned back to their house with their
respective weapons. Thereafter, we made arrangement of private
vehicle and came to Civil Hospital, Nuh, where our M.L.R was got
registered. On seeing our serious condition, we were referred to
Medical College, Nalhar. From there too, my father was referred to
Delhi. At there, his treatment is undergoing. Thus, it is requested that
the strictest legal action may be taken against the aforementioned
persons. Further, our life and property may be protected. Dated
03.05.2023, complainant Sakeel s/o Roshan r/o village Muraka, P.S
Sadar Nuh, District Nuh".
3. During the course of investigation, the statement of Jamaluddin
was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he also stated that the
petitioner-Mukramin had given him an injury with a rod on his arm.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The injury
attributed to the petitioner on the hand of the injured-Jamaluddin was a
simple injury and no injury had been attributed to the petitioner on the
person of the deceased. The co-accused Jaleb Khan @ Jallu and Mubarik
had been granted the concession of regular bail by the Sessions Court vide
orders dated 25.09.2023 and 10.10.2023 (Annexures P-2 and P-3
respectively). As the petitioner was ready and willing to join 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 22.02.2024 which is taken on record. While referring to the said
reply, he contends that the petitioner was a part of the unlawful assembly
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034976
2024:PHHC:034976
CRM-M-4551-2024 (O & M) ::4::
which had committed the murder of Roshan and had caused injuries to
various persons. The complainant had attributed a specific injury to the
petitioner on the person of Jamaluddin. The statement of Jamaluddin was
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he has reiterated the version of
the complainant. The MLR of Jamaluddin (Annexure R-4) would show
multiple injuries on the person of Jamaluddin. Merely because the co-
accused had been granted the concession of regular bail, the petitioner was
not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, moreso, when the recovery
of the rod had to be effected from him.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant also contends that it
was a case of murder and the petitioner was a part of the unlawful assembly
and therefore, was not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. 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
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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034976
2024:PHHC:034976
CRM-M-4551-2024 (O & M) ::5::
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."
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034976
2024:PHHC:034976
CRM-M-4551-2024 (O & M) ::6::
9. In the instant case, not only is a specific role attributed to the
petitioner in the FIR but the statement of Jamaluddin has also been recorded
to the effect that the petitioner had caused injuries to him. A perusal of the
medico legal report of the injured-Jamaluddin would reveal the detail of
injuries suffered by him, which are as follows:-
Sr. Injuries Marked Injury
No. Number
cm present over LT Thigh at lateral
aspect with skin deep in nature with
black margins, 1cm aspect from each
other with diffuse active bleeding.
Adv-X-ray LT Thigh AP/LAT &
Ortho opinion
present over LT side of Back, below
Scapula obliquely placed.
Adv-CXR PA View
present over LT Mastoid Region with
swelling.
Adv-NCCT Face & Ent Opinion
present over LT Shoulder
Adv-X-ray LT Shoulder AP/LAT &
Ortho opinion
10. Quite apparently, the medical evidence is in consonance with
the ocular account and therefore, the offence is prima facie established. The
recovery of the weapon of offence is also to be affected from the petitioner.
Even otherwise, he is a part of the unlawful assembly which has committed
the offence of murder and multiple injuries have been caused to various
other injured. Merely because the co-accused have been granted the
concession of regular bail does not entitle the petitioner to the grant of
anticipatory bail as the consideration for the grant of anticipatory and regular
bail are completely different.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034976
2024:PHHC:034976
CRM-M-4551-2024 (O & M) ::7::
11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition.
Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
12. 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
March 11, 2024
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034976
7 of 7
