Pushpa Rani vs State Of Haryana

H.S. Madaan, J

Case taken up through video conferencing.

This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail has been filed by the petitioner â€" Pushpa Rani, aged about 40 years, resident of House

No.1283, Ward No.18, Sainiyan Mohalla, Hisar, District Hisar, an accused in FIR No.537 dated 20.7.2020, under Sections 302, 148, 149, 341, 120-B

IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered with Police Station HTM, Hisar.

In nutshell, the prosecution story is that on 20.7.2020 at about 4:00 p.m., Mukesh alias Pardhan son of Om Parkash, resident of near Hanuman

Temple, Dhani Badwali, Hisar had gone to Mahabir Colony on Scooty bearing No.HR20-AF/5993 in connection with some personal work and he was

returning and when he had reached near Hanuman Temple, Dhani Badwali, then 6-7 young boys on 2-3 motorcycles armed with pistols intercepted

scooty of Mukesh @ Pardhan; three of them happened to be Sunil @ Poly, Gulshan alias Goldy and Balram alias Lafar; the complainant along with

Abhishek alias Bharti also reached at the spot; Sunil @ Poly fired a shot from his pistol at Mukesh @ Pardhan, as such Mukesh @ Pardhan left the

spot and ran towards the street; Balram, Gulshan and 3-4 other boys opened indiscriminate fire at Mukesh @ Pardhan hitting him in the process and

Mukesh @ Pardhan fell on the ground; when the complainant and Abhishek alias Bharti raised noises, then the assailants left the spot on their

motorcycles taking away their respective weapons; injured Mukesh @ Pardhan was taken to General Hospital, Hisar, where he was declared dead.

On information being given to the police by complainant Om Parkash, formal FIR in the matter was recorded. Investigation in the case started, during

the course of which petitioner Pushpa Rani was nominated as a person, who had got the RECCY of the place of incident and checked the schedule of

deceased carried out from the co-accused Deepak.

Apprehending her arrest in this case, the present petitioner had approached the Court of Sessions at Hisar seeking grant of pre-arrest bail by filing an

application, which was assigned to Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. However, her such application was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Hisar vide detailed order dated 3.9.2020. As such, the present petitioner has come to this Court by way of filing the instant petition praying for

the similar relief, which request is being opposed by the State counsel.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the records.

The petitioner/accused though not named in the FIR is said to have played a crucial role in the planning of the incident by getting the reccy of the

place of occurrence done and schedule of the deceased checked from co-accused Deepak. Though she might not have been present at the spot at the

relevant time but she having played a crucial role in the planning of the incident in which Mukesh @ Pardhan was shot dead by co-accused of the

present petitioner, she cannot come up with a straight face and state that she has nothing to do with the incident and she should be granted pre-arrest

bail. When the present petition was filed, the petitioner was granted interim bail with a direction to join the investigation and she is said to have done so

but as informed by the State counsel on instructions from SI Bhup Singh, the petitioner has not come with all the facts within her knowledge and not

disclosed the complete details of the planning of the incident and its execution.

The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is found to be necessary for complete and effective investigation to find out the complete planning of the

incident, the persons, who had taken part therein and role played by each one of them as well as execution thereof specifying role of each assailant

and further from where the firearms used in the incident were procured and where the assailants had escaped after the incident. In case custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the investigating agency that would leave many loose ends and gaps in the investigation affecting the

investigation being carried out adversely, which is not called for.

In case of State represented by the C.B.I. Versus Anil Sharma, 1997(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 268, Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that custodial

interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than questioning a suspect who is on anticipatory bail, in a case like this interrogation of

suspected person is of tremendous advantage in getting useful informations.

Finding no merits in the petition, the same stands dismissed accordingly.

It may be mentioned here that nothing discussed hereinabove shall have any bearing on the merits of the case.