Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1212
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Joga Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 17669 of 2019
Decided On : 22-05-2019
Advocate Appeared:
S.P.S. Sidhu, Adv., Himmat Singh, Adv., S.K. Aggarwal, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the credibility of eyewitness accounts, the gravity of the offense, and the findings of the investigating agency are crucial factors in determining the grant of anticipatory bail in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - IPC 302, 307, 341, 34 - The court discussed the provisions of IPC sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 341 (wrongful restraint), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) in the context of the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail. The court considered the eyewitness accounts, the plea of alibi, and the findings of the investigating agency to determine the petitioner's involvement in the offense.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving charges under IPC sections 302, 307, 341, and 34. The FIR was filed after the petitioner's father allegedly caused fatal injuries to the complainant's husband, leading to his death. The petitioner claimed innocence based on the findings of the investigating agency and the plea of alibi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the eyewitness accounts and serious allegations against the petitioner, coupled with the gravity of the offense, did not entitle the petitioner to anticipatory bail. The court also noted that the plea of alibi and the presence of the petitioner's daughter at the spot would be decided during the trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail, the credibility of eyewitness accounts, the plea of alibi, and the gravity of the offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the eyewitness accounts provided in the FIR, the findings of the investigating agency, and the gravity of the offense. The court emphasized that the plea of alibi and the presence of the petitioner's daughter at the spot would be determined during the trial.
Final Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed, and the court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
JUDGMENT :
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
1. The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 454 dated 11.12.2018, registered under Sections 302, 307, 341 and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala.
2. For a ready reference, the FIR is reproduced below:
"Statement of Ranjit Kaur wife of Sarup Singh, caste Jat resident of Dera Layal Patti Jattan, New Sabzi Mandi Ambala City. Stated that I am resident of above said address and I have one daughter and one son. My son Daler Singh is in service at Bijwara (Andhra Pradesh). Our residential house is near G. T. Road. We have hired a meson for construction of Kothi and our one plot is in possession of Surinder Pal Singh son of Hazura Singh resident of Layalpura Dera. This plot is our joint prperty and same is in the name of my husband Sarup Singh. Surinder Pal Singh has possession of the plot and he was asking transfer in his name and thus, keeping grudge, today on 11.12.2018 a about 8.30 a. m. my husband was going towards fields on his tractor to take fodder and I along with my daughter Darshandeep Kaur were tying cattles near the main gate. In the meantime, Surinderpal Singh and his son came near the tractor of my husband and stopped his tractor. Surinderpal Singh was armed with axe and he gave axe blow from the right side at the neck of my husband with intention to murder him. He continuously gave axe blow to my husband when he was sitting on tractor. His son namely Joga Singh was standing with his father and stopped the tractor and he was raising lalkara by saying that he be not spared. I and my daughter raised alarm and came running to rescue him. Then Surinderpal Singh with his axe and alongwith his son Joga Singh ran away from the spot. Then I took my husband in the vehicle of my neighbour and with the help of my daughter to Govt. Hospital Ambala. Doctor gave his first aid and sent him in Ambulance by referring GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh. Gurmeet Singh Meson has witnessed the occurrence. My husband is under treatment at GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh and he is unconscious. Surinderpal Singh and his son Joga Singh badly injured my husband. Thus, legal action be taken against them. My statement has been recorded at GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh, same is correct. Action be taken.
Sd/- Ranjit Kaur"
3. Later on, Sarup Singh, husband of the complainant, died and Section 302 IPC was added in the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that during investigation, the police has conducted investigation and as per the same, the petitioner was not found to be present at the spot and the investigation was verified by an officer of the rank of A.S.P, Ambala.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that on the basis of the tower location of the cell phone of the petitioner, it was at a distance of 8 Kms. in the vegetables market and in the inquiry, certain witnesses have deposed in favour of the petitioner that he was present in vegetables market.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per the aforesaid inquiry, the petitioner was found to be innocent and he was kept in column No. 2 while submitting the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., whereas his father/co-accused Surinder Pal Singh was found to be prime accused.
7. It is further submitted that thereafter, the trial Court in exercise of its power under Section 190 Cr.P.C. has summoned the petitioner as an additional accused, vide order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala (Annexure P-2). The operative part of the order, summoning the petitioner, reads as under:
"(6) In order to ascertain the reason/basis for exonerating Joga Singh by the police this court had called for and gone through the police file which shows that in the investigation conducted by SI Balbir Singh the fact that Joga Singh was not accompanying the accused Surinder Pal Singh came to be put forth in the statements of Bhupinder Singh, Chhapinder Singh and Gobind Singh, who
