2020 Supreme(P&H) 1325

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Parvesh And Another - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana And Another - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 9512 of 2020, 9777 of 2020, 12862 of 2020, 18907 of 2020, 31499 of 2020, 23912 of 2020, 19799 of 2020, 22074 of 2020, 19591 of 2020, 19656 of 2020, 19665 of 2020, 22273 of 2020, 19587 of 2020
Decided On : 19-10-2020

The power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised against a person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted or who have been discharged, provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. However, in so far as an accused who has been discharged is concerned the requirement of Sections 300 and 398 CrPC has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh.

Headnote:

ANTICIPATORY BAIL - SECTION 319 CRPC - REGULAR BAIL - CANCELLATION OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL - [ACT SECTIONS LISTED] - In a case involving multiple petitions for anticipatory bail, regular bail, and cancellation of anticipatory bail, the court examined the facts, findings, issues, and legal provisions relevant to each petition. The court considered the allegations against each accused, their role in the incident, and the stage of the trial. The court also addressed the issue of summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC and the circumstances in which such power can be exercised. The court's decision on each petition was based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, with reference to relevant legal provisions and precedents.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved multiple petitions for anticipatory bail, regular bail, and cancellation of anticipatory bail arising from a double murder incident. The petitioners were accused of participating in an unlawful assembly that resulted in the deaths of two individuals. The police had initially declared one of the accused innocent, but later summoned him and other accused under Section 319 CrPC.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial court had acted appropriately in summoning the accused under Section 319 CrPC, as they had not been declared innocent by the police and were evading arrest. The court also considered the specific allegations against each accused and their role in the incident, and granted or denied bail accordingly. The court further held that the anticipatory bail granted to one accused was liable to be cancelled as it was obtained by concealing the correct facts.

Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in summoning the accused under Section 319 CrPC? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail or regular bail? 3. Whether the anticipatory bail granted to one accused should be cancelled?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court had acted appropriately in summoning the accused under Section 319 CrPC, as they had not been declared innocent by the police and were evading arrest. The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, which held that the power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised against a person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted or who have been discharged. 2. The court considered the specific allegations against each accused and their role in the incident, and granted or denied bail accordingly. The court noted that some of the accused had been granted bail by coordinate benches, and took into account the stage of the trial and the fact that some of the accused had been in custody for a long time. 3. The court held that the anticipatory bail granted to one accused was liable to be cancelled as it was obtained by concealing the correct facts. The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Brij Nandan Jaiswal Vs. Munna @ Munna Jaiswal and another, which held that bail granted by the High Court in a murder case can be set aside if the same is granted without noticing the pros and cons of the case.

Final Decision: 1. The court confirmed the anticipatory bail granted to two accused. 2. The court dismissed the anticipatory bail petitions of two accused and allowed the anticipatory bail petition of one accused. 3. The court dismissed the regular bail petitions of two accused and allowed the regular bail petition of one accused. 4. The court allowed the petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail of one accused and dismissed the petitions for cancellation of anticipatory bail of three other accused.