Shrif v. State of Haryana
Case Details
CRM-M-8873-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8873-2025 Reserved on: 10.03.2025 Pronounced on: 27.03.2025 Sharif @ Shrif ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Anas Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, D.A.G., Haryana. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Legal Reasoning
FIR No. 89 Dated 15.03.2024 Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Nuh Sections Gauvansh 186, 279, 336, 353, 120-B, 307 IPC, 5/13(2), 17 of Haryana and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and 11-59-60, 25-54-59 of Arms Act Sanrakshan 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Per paragraph 7 of the bail application, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. 1 FIR No. 411 2 155 Dated Offenses 10.11.2022 5/13(2) of Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and and Sections Gau Samvardhan Act 279/307/336/34/427 IPC 20.02.2019 279/336/353/186/307/120-B IPC, Section 5/13(2)/17 of Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gau Samvardhan Act, Sections 11/59/60 of Animal Cruelty Act and Section 25 of Arms Act 424 18.12.2016 5/8 of Gauvanshiya Pashudhan Pratishedh 3 4 5 195 255 Jyoti Sharma 2025.03.27 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 01.07.2018 379/336/427/120-B IPC and Sections 5/13(2)/17 of Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gau Samvardhan Act 27.09.2016 279/336IPC, Section 13(1) of Haryana Gau- vansh Sanrakshan and Gau Samvardhan Act, Sections and Sections 11/59/60 of Animal Cruelty Act 1 Police Station Sector 56, Gurugram Sadar, Nuh Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan Hathin, Palwal Bawani Khera, Bhiwani CRM-M-8873-2025 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply/status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: “3. That the brief facts of the present case are that on 15.03.2024, SI Bachchu Singh along with other officials were present at Village Bhakdoji near Delhi Mumbai Expressway for crime prevention duty, when he received information from secret informer that one container vehicle containing cattle will go to Rajasthan and the same was escorted by one swift car having two persons in it. If barricades be installed, they can be apprehended with cattle. The police installed barricades at the place informed by secret informer, where, after about 15 minutes, the above said vehicle container was seen coming from Village Kol and signal was given to stop the vehicle but driver of said vehicle sped up. On which, the police thrown iron kanta towards said vehicle container, due to which tyres of said vehicle got punctured. However, still the driver of said container vehicle did not stop. When police chased him, then a person sitting on conductor side fired two gun shots on police team with intention to kill them. After about two kilometer, the tyres of said vehicle were fully damaged and then the driver and two persons from conductor side jumped out of said vehicle to flee away from the spot. However, the person who jumped from the driver side was apprehended by the police and he disclosed his name as Mubarik @ Mantar. He also disclosed the name of the person who was sitting on conductor side and who fired on police as Rukmuddin @ Kala and name of the third person as Akbar. He also disclosed the name of persons sitting in the swift car as Mubin and Nawab Qureshi, who on seeing the police have already fled away from the spot before reaching to the barricade. On search, the said container vehicle was found without any registration number plate and engine and chasis number on the same were also found rubbed. Total 30 cattle who were mercilessly confined in said vehicle were found along with one live cartridge .315 bore, one empty cartridge 315 bore, two knives, one axe and ten meters rope from said vehicle. Thereupon, the above mentioned FIR was registered.” 4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 5. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply/status report. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply/status report, which read as follows: “9. That the role of the petitioner Sharif in the present case is that he is the owner of vehicle/container no. HR-55-R-7735. The petitioner had removed the registration number plates and he had rubbed the chasis and engine numbers of the said vehicle and on the instructions of the petitioner, the other above named accused Mubarik @ Mantar, Rukmuddin @ Kala and Akbar were carrying the cattle in the said Vehicle of the petitioner and the same was being taken to Rajasthan. However, the said vehicle along with the cattle were apprehended by the police on 15.03.2024. 10. That the evidence against the petitioner in the present case is that he has been named by accused Akbar in his disclosure statement in which the said accused Akbar has stated that the petitioner is the owner Jyoti Sharma 2025.03.27 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-8873-2025 of the vehicle in question and the cattle was being transported on his instructions. Moreover, the mechanical inspection of the recovered vehicle/container was got conducted from Motor Mechanic, Haryana Roadways, Nuh. From the inspection, the engine and chasis numbers of the said vehicle came forth and on checking on the challaing machine, the registration number of the vehicle came forth as HR-55-R-7735 and the registered owner of the same was found to be Sharif (present petitioner). The disclosure statement of accused Akbar is attached herewith as Annexure R-2 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.” 7. Allegations against the petitioner are that he was owner of the alleged vehicle and his name cropped up in disclosure statement of co-accused. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration. 8. The investigation indicates that the petitioner is not the main accused, so the petitioner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other co- accused with a higher role. 9. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. 10. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 11. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 12.
Legal Reasoning
This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. Jyoti Sharma 2025.03.27 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-8873-2025 13. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation 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 Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 14. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the victim, members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction 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 sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 15. The condition mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.” 16. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding Jyoti Sharma 2025.03.27 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-8873-2025 the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 17. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 18. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 19. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 20. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. 27.03.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Jyoti Sharma 2025.03.27 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 5