Ram Karan and Others vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—At the very outset, the learned Counsel intends to withdraw the instant petition on behalf of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to enable them to file an application for anticipatory bail before the Court of Session at the first instance.

In this view of the matter, the present petition qua petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. However, the police will not arrest them for one week from today to enable them to file an application for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court.

Invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.PC, petitioners No. 3 to 10 have instituted the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them and their other co-accused, by virtue of FIR No. 67 dated 7.6.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 326, 452 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Sahazadpur, Distt. Ambala.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, after going through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail qua petitioner Nos. 3 to 10 deserves to be accepted in this context.

A Coordinate Bench of this Court (Gurdev Singh, J.), while issuing notice of motion, passed the following order on 6.9.2010:

Heard.

It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners, except petitioner No. 1, were arrested after the registration of the FIR and that they are being re-arrested after the addition of offence u/s 326 IPC. He also submitted that the petitioners never misused the concession of bail.

Notice of motion for 29.10.2010.

In the meanwhile, in the case of arrest of the petitioners, in the FIR mentioned in the petition, they shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer subject to the following conditions:

i) They shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer;

ii) They shall not offer any threat, promise or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer/Court; and

iii) They shall not leave the limits of this country without prior permission of the Court.

At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Pirthi Singh, has stated that petitioners No. 3 to 10 have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. What is not disputed here is that originally, the case under Sections 148, 323, 324, 452 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC was registered against the accused, in which, they were arrested and allowed regular bail. The offence u/s 326 IPC was subsequently added, which necessitated petitioner Nos. 3 to 10 to file the instant petition for anticipatory bail. As petitioner Nos. 3 to 10 were earlier arrested and allowed regular bail, therefore, nothing is to be recovered from them. All the offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of these petitioners in any such case. As even the challan has not yet been presented, therefore, conclusion of trial will take long time.

So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, petitioners No. 3 to 10 are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case.

Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, petitioners No. 3 to 10 shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

Needless to mention that in case, petitioners No. 3 to 10 do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection.