Vikas v. State of Haryana and another
Case Details
CRM-M-65563-2024 217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-65563-2024 Date of decision: 03.04.2025 Vikas ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:
Legal Reasoning
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. 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 JYOTI 2025.04.07 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 2 CRM-M-65563-2024 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. 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. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 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. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner 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. 15. 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 2025.04.07 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3 CRM-M-65563-2024 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. 16. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 17. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 18. 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. 19. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Arguments
Mr. Deepak Grover, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Raman Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Yashdev Kaushik, Advocate, for the complainant. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 254 19.04.2024 Mujessar, Faridabad Distt. 186, 332, 333, 353, 506, 201, 34 IPC 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. In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the translated copy of FIR annexed with the bail petition as Annexure P-1, which reads as follows: “To, Chowki Incharge, Sanjay Colony, Faridabad. Sir, it is requested that I Roop Singh No.584 is posted as SPO in Sanjay Colony, Faridabad, on dated 18.04.2024 in the night I alongwith my companion SPO Surjit No.392 while patrolling on rider No.37 were coming towards Gali No.54/6, 33rd Feet Road, near Bharat-Medical Store, Sanjay Colony, Faridabad, that 4 boys were consuming liquor outside by sitting on the cot, my companion Surjit asked them you go inside, do not consume liquor outside, on which four boys whose names Vikas, Vicky and Rahul and one unknown started beating my companion with sticks, I was also came forward to save my companion, then Vikas, Vicky and Rahul called their JYOTI 2025.04.07 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 1 CRM-M-65563-2024 father Prakash, Vikas and Vicky have beaten me with the rod and Rahul beaten me with the stick, and Prakash slapped me and torn our uniform, then 5/6 more boys were also come, they have also beaten us and said that if you will see in the street next time then we will kill you, we left from the spot by saving our lives, and given the information to ASI Rakesh, S.D.O. these people have created hindrance in performing our official duty, beaten us and extended threats to us. Strict legal action may be taken against them.” 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 his family. 5. Counsel for the petitioner voluntarily submits that he would have no objection in case any stringent conditions this Court might put upon the petitioner including surrender of fire arms, not enter the property, workplace and residence of complainant. He further submits that he would have no objection in case the petitioner repeats the offence where the sentence prescribes is 07 years or more, the State shall file an application for cancellation of bail in all the pending cases against the petitioner. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. Counsel for complainant also opposes the bail. REASONING: 7. Allegations against the petitioner are that he along with other accused had assaulted the complainant and his colleague Surjeet being police officials while they were returning from patrolling and they also threatened to kill them. The other co-accused Rahul and Vicky @ Vijay have already been granted regular bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Given the undertaking made by the petitioner that in case, he repeats the offence, he would have no objection in case, State shall file an application for cancellation of bail. The petitioner is a young boy, aged 39 years, moreover, he is a first offender, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate that petitioner should give one chance to reform his life, as such, he is entitled to bail. 8. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The
Decision
stand disposed of. 03.04.2025 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE JYOTI 2025.04.07 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 4