Jagbir vs State of Haryana

S.S. Saron, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in the case registered against him for the offences u/s 307 etc. of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The FIR in the case has been recorded on the statement of Jasbir Singh. It is alleged that on 4.7.2007 some respectables of the village had gone to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani for lodging a complaint against Sarpanch Dhano Devi, mother of the petitioner. It was alleged that Sarpanch was not discharging her duties properly. The sons of the Sarpanch, namely, Jagbir Singh (petitioner) and Sunil sons of Dharampal, Satbir Bambla and Karambir were also with them. They had a quarrel with regard to the complaint that had been made against the Sarpanch. In this regard on 5.7.2007, a Panchayat had been convened in the village. The complainant Jasbir Singh was also present. When deliberations were going on. Jagbir (petitioner), Billu son of Dilbag, Karambir and Satbir Bambla came in a Tavera car which was driven by Sunil son of Dharampal. After alighting from the vehicle Sunil proclaimed that he was the person who got his mother suspended and today he would be killed. The other persons got down with the weapons in their hands. Karambir and Satbir caught hold of the complainant and Sunil gave a slap on his face. Billu gave fist blow on his abdomen. Thereafter, Jagbir (petitioner) put the revolver on the head of the complainant and fired a shot with an intention to kill the complainant. The shot hit the complainant on the backside of his head. On hearing the firing Nasib Singh, Jaibir and Leela, residents of the village raised a `Lalkara'' to catch them. On hearing this all the accused ran away. Therefore, the role which is attributed to the petitioner in the FIR is that he put a revolver on the head of the complainant Jasbir Singh and fired a shot with an intention to kill him. The shot hit on the backside of the head of the complainant.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has laid considerable emphasis on the inquiry conducted by DSP, Dadri. In the report dated 27.7.2007, the DSP has inter alia observed that some persons had deposed that Jagbir (petitioner) was standing near the vehicle at a distance and that a fire arm shot was fired by Satbir. On the basis of the said facts, the DSP came to the conclusion that the shot was fired by Satbir. However, Jagbir was involved in the quarrel. Therefore, Jagbir had probably anticipated that a quarrel would take place. In any case, in the inquiry that was conducted by the DSP, Dadri it has been established that shot was fired by Satbir and not by the petitioner. It is also stated that the recovery has also been effected from Satbir.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner is said to have fired a shot from his pistol at the head of the complainant. In case the report of the DSP is that Satbir has caused the injury, it is for the Police not to arrest the petitioner. It is well known that the Police is not always bound to arrest an accused even if there are allegations against him of having committed a cognizable offence. Therefore, keeping in view the nature of allegations that the petitioner fired a shot on the head of the complainant Jasbir Singh which hit on the backside of the head, the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail.

It is well known that considerations governing the Court''s decision on an application seeking pre-arrest bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. are materially different from that seeking post-arrest bail or for that matter even seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal before a higher Court. In a case where pre-arrest bail is sought the advantage of custodial interrogation of eliciting more and useful information and material is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extra-ordinary in character.

In view of the above, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he may be allowed to withdraw this petition so as to enable him to approach the Police authorities in view of the report dated 27.7.2007 of the DSP. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as withdrawn.