Naresh @ Jogi vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As, identical points for consideration to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions bearing CRM No. M-13796 of 2014, titled as Naresh @ Jogi Versus State of Haryana (for brevity "the 1st Case"), CRM No. M-14827 of 2014, titled as Raj Kumar Versus State of Haryana (for short "the 2nd case") and CRM No. M-15728 of 2014, titled as Anil Vs. State of Haryana (for brevity "the 3rd case"), arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition of facts.

The petitioners have directed the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., in a case registered against them, vide FIR No. 236 dated 22.03.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120-B, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 382 IPC, by the police of Police Station City Hisar, District Hisar.

Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on April, 24, 2014 in the 1st case:-

Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case, registered under Sections 307, 148, 323 and 325 read with Sections 120-B and 149 IPC. Initially the police deleted the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC and the petitioner along with his other co-accused were arrested, interrogated and released on regular bail by the Magistrate, vide order dated 29.03.2014. The argument is that subsequently again, the police has illegally added the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC, in order to enhance the gravity of the offence and to wreak vengeance. The argument further proceeds that even neither any specific role nor any particular injury is attributed to the petitioner by the complainant in the FIR.

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 13.05.2014.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his satisfaction.

Sequelly, similar order was passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on May 06, 2014 in the 2nd case as well.

At the very outset, on the instructions from ASI Jagraj Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners (in 1st & 2nd case) have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petitions for anticipatory bail are accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, by way of orders dated April, 24, 2014 and May, 06, 2014, are hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioner in 3rd petition is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the investigating agency.

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this respect.