Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1237
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J.
Gurpreet Singh And Another - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-16233-2020 (O & M)
Decided On : 01-07-2020
Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate; for the petitioners.; Mr. Harpreet Singh Multani, Assistant A.G., Punjab; for the respondent.; Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate; for the complainant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exceptional nature of anticipatory bail and the need to balance individual's personal liberty with societal interest.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Anticipatory Bail - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 353, 186, 323, 427, 34, 307, 382, 325 - 438 Cr.P.C - 307, 382, 325, 353, 186, 323, 427, 34 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 including 353, 186, 323, 427, 34, 307, 382, 325. The court emphasized the exceptional nature of anticipatory bail and the need for balancing individual's personal liberty with societal interest.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including non-bailable offenses. The main accused was alleged to have assaulted public servants, and the petitioners sought bail on the grounds of being falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary, and the petitioner was not falsely implicated. The court emphasized the need to curb the tendency of assaulting or using criminal force against public servants.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving serious charges under the Indian Penal Code, and the question of whether the petitioner was falsely implicated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional cases and emphasized the need to balance individual's personal liberty with societal interest. The court also emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation in certain cases.
Final Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J. (Oral) - The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
CRM-14457-2020
2. The prayer in the application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for grant of permission to place on record amended CRM-M-16233-2020 alongwith documents Annexures P-l to P-6 and for grant of exemption from filing certified copies of the abovesaid documents.
3. Learned State Counsel has no objection if the application is allowed.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned and no objection by the learned State Counsel the application is allowed and amended petition CRM-M-16233-2020 is taken on record alongwith documents Annexures P-l to P-6 with grant of exemption from filing certified copies of the same.
CRM-14194-2020
5. The prayer in the application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is for grant of exemption from filing certified copies of documents Annexures P-l and P-2.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the filing of amended CRM-M-16233-2020 alongwith documents Annexures P-l to P-6, the present application has become infructuous.
Disposed of as having become infructuous.
Main Case
7. The petitioners have filed present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 102 dated 09.06.2020 registered at Police Station Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana under Sections 353, 186, 323, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC) to which Sections 307, 382 and 325 of the IPC were added later on.
8. The above said FIR was registered on statement made by Husandeep Singh Brar, Agriculture Development Officer who alleged that on 07.06.2020 in the evening information was received that accused-Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi was preparing the field for sowing paddy crop before 10.06.2020 the date notified by the Government of Punjab. On 08.06.2020 he alongwith Jatinderpal Singh, Agricultural Officer, Nidhi Chaudhary Agriculture Development Officer and Charanjit singh, Agriculture Sub- Inspector reached the village in their Ritz Car and asked accused-Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi about sowing of paddy crop prior to notified time who became furious, started abusing them and inflicted blow with spade aiming his head with an intention to kill him (Husandeep Singh Brar) but he raised his right arm due to which the spade blow fell on the elbow of his right arm which was fractured. When he tried to run away, then Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi gave another spade blow on his right leg which fell on right ankle. Thereafter, Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi gave spade blow aiming the head of Nidhi Chaudhary who retreated and the spade blow fell on her right thigh. Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi gave another blow aiming the head of Nidhi Chaudhary while she was running but the spade blow fell on the ground due to which wooden handle of the spade was broken. Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi snatched mobile phone of Nidhi Chaudhary and gave a number of blows on her back with the broken handle of spade tied in his hand. In the meantime, Sukhdev Singh father of Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi came on the spot and started hurling abuses and chased them with an intention to give blows with a tangli tied in his hand. Both Sukhdev Singh and Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi damaged their car.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No. 1 Gurpreet Singh has been arrested in the case on 25.06.2020 and the petition has become infructuous qua petitioner No.l and prays that the prayer in the petition may be treated as restricted to grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner No. 2-Sukhdev Singh.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case due to being father of main accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi. None of the injuries are attributed to petitioner No. 2- Sukhdev Singh. Offences under Sections 186, 323
