Sunil @ Sonu and Others vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioners-Sunil @ Sonu and others, have preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr. P.C. in a case registered against them, vide FIR No. 576 dated 17.12.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 306 & 34 IPC (the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(iii) and 3(2)(iv) of The Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was later on added), by the police of Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 13.11.2013, some fight had taken place between complainant Rampal and his son Shivam on one side, with the petitioners and others on the other side, in which both the parties received injuries. The matter was reported to the police. The police asked the parties to amicably settle the dispute before the panchayat. It was alleged that complainant, his son and nephew were abused and insulted in the panchayat. Thereafter, petitioners used to taunt them in this relevant connection. On 15.12.2013 at about 6 PM, the petitioners chased Shivam. Subsequently, on 17.12.2013, he (Shivam) committed suicide and it was claimed that petitioners have abetted the commission of offence. Taking into consideration, the crux of the allegations contained in the FIR, as to whether the provision of Section 306 IPC is attracted to the facts of the present case against the petitioners or not, INTER ALIA, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Moreover, interim bail was granted to enable the petitioners to join the investigation by this Court, vide order dated 11.04.2014.

At the very outset, on instructions from SI Sat Parkash, learned State counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners 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 and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, by virtue of order dated April 11, 2014, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr. P.C.

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. At the same time, 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.