Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1351
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Sanjay Kumar, J.
Suresh Kumar Satija - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 26830 of 2020
Decided On : 15-10-2020
Kulbhushan Raheja, Advocate, S.P.S. Tinna, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusations, the antecedents of the accused, and the balance between fair investigation and prevention of harassment in granting anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - Arms Act, 1959, Sections 458, 307, 323, 506, 148, 149, and Sections 25, 27 - The court discussed the nature and gravity of the accusations, the antecedents of the accused, the possibility of the accused to flee from justice, and the impact of grant of anticipatory bail. It also considered the balance between fair investigation and prevention of harassment, and the reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or threat to the complainant. The court referred to the Supreme Court cases Siddharam Saatlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another to support its decision to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case involving charges under Sections 458, 307, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC, and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The case relates to an alleged attack on the complainant by the petitioner and others, with the complainant sustaining a bullet injury on his right toe.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nature of the injury attributed to the petitioner was not grievous, and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner may not have a real impact on the case as the alleged offence was purely personal and limited to the complainant alone. The court directed the petitioner to join the investigation and cooperate with the Special Investigation Team.
Issues: The issues involved the registration of the FIR, the delay in registration, the alleged political connotations, and the nature of the injury attributed to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the nature of the injury, the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged attack, and the decision to hand over the investigation to a Special Investigation Team. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to join the investigation and cooperate with the authorities.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to join the investigation and cooperate with the Special Investigation Team. The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kumar, J. - The petitioner is one of the accused in FIR No.0185 dated 03.08.2020 on the file of Police Station City-1 Abohar, District Fazilka, registered under Sections 458, 307, 323, 506, 148 and 149 IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. By way of this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., he seeks grant of anticipatory bail.
2. The subject FIR was registered upon the complaint made by one Surinder Singh @ Vicky on 03.08.2020 at 19.33 hrs. Therein, he stated that he had purchased 27 Washing Machines from one Atul Gupta @ Ashu but was yet to make full payment therefor. According to the complainant, at about 09.30 P.M. on 02.08.2020, Atul Gupta @ Ashu called him on the phone and after 15 to 20 minutes thereafter, Atul Gupta @ Ashu along with the petitioner, who had a Danda in his hand, and one Maku came to his house and attacked him. Maku caught him by the neck and punched him in his chest while the petitioner hit him with the Danda on his back. He thereupon fell down and Atul Gupta @ Ashu opened fire with his pistol. The bullet hit him on his right toe. He raised a hue and cry and his family members and others gathered. The accused thereupon fled from the spot. It is on the strength of this complaint that the subject FIR was registered.
3. Mr. Kulbhushan Raheja, learned counsel for the petitioner, would argue that the registration of the FIR by involving the petitioner was a concerted move on the part of the police authorities to implicate him, owing to political compulsions. According to him, the petitioner was not even present at the spot as he was at the house of his brother at that time. Learned counsel would contend that the CCTV footage available at the house of his brother would bear out this fact. He would also point out the delay in the registration of the FIR as the incident is stated to have taken place at about 9.30 PM on 02.08.2020 but the FIR was registered only at 07.33 PM on 03.08.2020. He would assert that the case against his client was concocted. He would further point out that, in any event, the injury attributed to the petitioner is a simple one and pray for relief.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Abohar, District Fazilka, filed a reply. Setting out the facts mentioned supra, he stated that custodial interrogation of the petitioner and the co-accused was required not only to ascertain the type of weapon used in the commission of the crime, viz., whether it was a country-made pistol or a licensed revolver, and also to ascertain as to what compelled the accused to enter the house of the complainant with the intention of murdering him. He stated that all the accused were at large since 03.08.2020. He adverted to the past antecedents of the petitioner by furnishing the details of 13 FIRs registered against him since the year 2003. He pointed out that in most of the cases, the petitioner had either got the matter compromised or pressurized the witnesses into turning hostile, leading to his acquittal. The petitioner was stated to be involved in a jail break case as he was found present in the Sub-Jail, Fazilka, without authority. This case is the subject matter of FIR No.3 dated 05.01.2017 on the file of Police Station City Fazilka, registered under Sections 117, 188, 448 and 120-B IPC and Sections 42 and 54 of the Prisons Act. He pointed out that medical examination of the complainant had revealed that he had suffered a bullet injury on his right foot. He stated that the matter was under investigation by a duly constituted Special Investigation Team. As regards the delay aspect, he stated that the alleged incident occurred at about 9.30 PM on 02.08.2020 and the injured complainant was admitted at the Civil Hospital, Abohar, at about 11.25 PM on that day. He stated that the first priority of the complainant was to secure medical treatment and this led to a procedural delay in the registration of the FIR.
5. Mr. Kulbhushan Raheja, learned counsel for the petit
