Harsh Rawal v. State of Haryana

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta+on Sec+ons 229 13.04.2024 Samalkha, District Panipat 148, 149, 195-A, 285, 506 IPC and Sec!on 25 of Arms Act (Sec!on 120-B IPC added later onti

¶1The pe!!oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap!oned above has come up before this Court under Sec!on 482 of Bhara!ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking an!cipatory bail.

¶2As per paragraph 8 of the bail applica!on, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Year Offenses Police Sta+on

1. 754 2022 201, 323, 325, 34, 341, 506 IPC -

2. 1191 2019 148, 149, 323, 506, 325 IPC -

¶3484 2021 393, 34, 452 IPC and 25 of - Arms Act

4. 214 2023 323, 324, 326, 34, 506 IPC -

5. 126 2022 323, 34, 341, 506 IPC -

¶3The facts and allega!ons are being taken from the translated copy of FIR annexed with the bail pe!!on as Annexure P-1, which reads as follows: "To SHO PS Samalkha, Panipat. Sir it is submited that I Parveen son of Puran is resident of Village Chulkana and I do agriculture work. On

26.07.2018, Rishi S/o Shyam Lal, R/o Chulkana along with his companions had murdered son of my uncle Sompal S/o Ruhna Ram R/o Chulkana and the police during inves-ga-on had registered a case and arrested Rishi order/judgment. 1 and his companions. This case is pending before court and they remained confined in jail. Today on 12.04.2024, Rishi has come to the village in the evening a1er his release on bail. Above Rishi came with a convoy of cars and about 20-25 cars were with him and there were total of about 70-80 persons including Rishi S/o Shyamlal, Sandeep S/o Shyamlal, Sonu S/o Pritam, Vishal @ Dhuma S/o Ashok and many other persons. I can recognize them if they are brought before me. They came with the convoy and firstly they stated burs-ng crackers in the street outside the house and also fired two shots and started making so much noise. We do not know as to who out of them fired. Seeing this terror I and my en-re family did not come out of the house due to fear. If we had come out of the house then they could have also killed us. I or any of my family members have not received any injury. Above Rishi was saying that if I gave statement against him then he will kill me. I and family members are having a threat of life from Rishi and his companions. Strict ac-on be taken against him."

¶4Counsel for the pe!!oner submits that he would have no objec!on in case any stringent condi!ons this Court might put upon the pe!!oner inlcuding surrender of fire arms, if any and in case, pe!!oner repeats the offence, where the sentence prescribes 07 years or more, he has no objec!on if the State files an applica!on for cancella!on of bail and in those cases, where he is on bail. He further contends that pre-trial incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oner and his family and all the accused in this case has already been released on bail.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail on instruc!ons. REASONING:

¶6Allega!on against the pe!!oner are that he was member of unlawful assembly, who was celebra!ng the release of main accused on bail. No ground for custodial interroga!on is made out.

¶7Pre-trial incarcera!on should not be a replica of post-convic!on sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecu!on or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of an!cipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not jus!fy custodial interroga!on or pre-trial incarcera!on.

¶8Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega!ons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus!fiability for custodial interroga!on or the pre-trial incarcera!on at this stage. Without commen!ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar order/judgment. 2 to this case, and for the reasons men!oned above, the pe!!oner makes a case for bail.

¶9Given above, provided the pe!!oner is not required in any other case, the pe!!oner shall be released on an!cipatory bail in the FIR cap!oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa!sfac!on of the Arres!ng Officer, and if the maFer is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep!ng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be sa!sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶10While furnishing a personal bond, the pe!!oner shall men!on the following personal iden!fica!on details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the aFes!ng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶11This order is subject to the pe!!oner's complying with the following terms.

¶12The pe--oner is directed to join the inves-ga-on within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Inves-gator. The pe!!oner shall be in deemed custody for Sec!on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Sec!on 23 of BSA, 2023. The pe!!oner shall join the inves!ga!on as and when called by the Inves!ga!ng Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the inves!ga!on at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecu!on will be open to seeking cancella!on of the bail. During the inves!ga!on, the pe!!oner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶13The pe!!oner shall abide by all statutory bond condi!ons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pe!!oner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

¶14Given the background of allega!ons against the pe!!oner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, complainant and incapacita!ng the accused would be one of the primary op!ons un!l the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquiFal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [ThisJYOTI order/judgment. 3 restric!on is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanc!on]. Given the nature of the allega!ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe!!oner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammuni!on, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fiLeen days and inform the Inves!gator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pe!!oner shall be en!tled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquiFal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restric!ng firearms would ins!ll confidence in the vic!m(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repea!ng the offense.

¶15The condi!ons men!oned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Pe!!on (Criminal) No. 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "The bail condi!ons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be propor!onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail condi!ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condi!ons that would result in the depriva!on of rights and liber!es must be eschewed."

¶16In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP

(Crl) 12225-2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, "It goes without saying that if the pe!!oner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the pe!!oner is bound to face the necessary consequences."

¶17In case the Inves!gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta!on arraigns another sec!on of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new sec!on prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sec!ons men!oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec!on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec!ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec!ons men!oned above; then, in that case, the Inves!gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe!!oner no!ce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶18This bail is condi#onal, and the founda#onal condi#on is that if the pe##oner order/judgment. 4 indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applica#on for cancella#on of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶19Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶20A cer!fied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe!!oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and aFest it to be a true copy. If the aFes!ng officer wants to verify its authen!city, such an officer can also verify its authen!city and may download and use the downloaded copy for aFes!ng bonds.

¶21Pe++on allowed in terms men!oned above. All pending applica!ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

09.07.2025 Jyo!-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 09.07.2025 Harsh Rawal ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the pe!!oner. Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, DAG, Haryana. ****