Priyanshu v. State of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

¶1Prayer in this petition has been made by the petitioner seeking benefit of pre arrest bail in case arising out of FIR No.8 dated 11.01.2024 registered under Sections 148, 149, 307, 323, 427, 452 and 506 of IPC (Section 325 of IPC added later on) at Police Station PGIMS, Rohtak, District   Rohtak,  on   the   basis   of   written   complaint   filed   by   the complainant Sagar on 11.01.2024 alleging therein that on 10.01.2024 at about 11:45 PM, he was on way to his native place at Village Rewari Kheda when a call was received regarding an altercation having taken place between his brother Kamaldeep and some youths. On receipt of this information,   he   immediately   rushed   towards   the   Paying   Guest accommodation of his brother and on reaching there, he found 10-15 youths armed with weapons while fleeing away from the spot. His brother Kamaldeep was seen lying injured in a serious condition. It was also found that the articles kept in his paying guest accommodation had been destroyed. The victim was brought to PGIMS Trauma Centre, Rohtak and then was admitted to KANOS Hospital in a critical condition. While alleging that the petitioner and one Anshul were amongst the assailants of his brother, he prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway.   Apprehending   his   arrest,   the   petitioner   had   moved   an application for grant of anticipatory bail which had been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide order dated

03.08.2024.

¶2It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The complainant Sagar was not an eye-witness to the alleged incident. The entire incident had been captured in the footage of the CCTV camera installed in the vicinity where the incident had taken place and the same clearly showed that the petitioner had not committed any specific overt act in the occurrence. He was neither armed with any weapon nor he had made any attempt to assault the victim nor he was hostile towards the victim. He was simply a bystander who had watched the incident of the victim being assaulted in his presence. The injuries on the person of the victim have not been attributed to him. His custodial interrogation is not required. He is ready to join the investigation. No recovery is to be effected from him. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶3Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the  complainant   has  submitted  that  the allegations  against  the petitioner are serious in nature. He was not only named in the complaint but the victim Kamaldeep also, in his statement recorded during the course of investigation has specifically taken the name of the petitioner and has attributed specific act of causing injuries to him along with the co-accused. It is argued that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for conducting thorough investigation in the matter. The victim had sustained serious injuries. No extraordinary or sparing circumstance has been made out warranting exercise of powers for grant of pre arrest bail. Therefore, it is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

¶4I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record.

¶5The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly along with the co-accused and in prosecution of common object of that unlawful assembly, he is alleged to have opened assault upon the victim Kamaldeep and caused serious injuries to him. Though   the   petitioner   has   placed   on   record   photocopies   of   the photographs extracted from the CCTV camera installed in the vicinity to show that the petitioner did not commit any specific overt act and has also placed on record a Compact Disc containing some part of the incident. This CD had been played in the Court. The petitioner has been identified by the learned counsel in this video. Though in this CCTV footage, the petitioner is not shown to be committing any specific overt act in assaulting the victim and some other youths are shown to be doing so but on a perusal of statement of the victim Kamaldeep as recorded during the course of investigation, it is revealed that he specifically stated that the present petitioner and the co-accused had taken him towards the side of vehicles and had thereafter caused injuries to him with different weapons. Only from the extract of the CCTV camera which is of a duration of hardly one minute, no conclusion can be drawn that the petitioner had not participated in the incident.

¶6The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. For conducting   thorough   investigation   in   the   matter,   the   custodial interrogation   of   the   petitioner   is   must.   Moreso,   it   is   well   settled proposition of law that arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as such grant to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence. %he 'ourt has also to see that an order of anticipatory *ail should not operate as inroad in the nor#al le&al procedure of cri#inal cases *y the trial 'ourt. %he custodial interro&ation of a suspected person is <ualitatively #ore elicitation oriented than <uestionin& a suspect 8ho is 8ell ensconced 8ith a favoura*le order under Section 13. of 'r.P.'.  The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. -MANI+HA BATRA0 2(.08.2024                      JUDGE #anju :hether speakin&>reasoned ?es>-o :hether reporta*le ?es>-o

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.08.2024 Priyanshu ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr. Pardeep Kumar Rapria, Advocate, for the complainant. (Through Video Conference) ----