Pradeep Kumar @ Bhima vs State Of Haryana

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 302

ANOOP CHITKARA
Pradeep Kumar @ Bhima – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rajat Gautam, DAG, Haryan, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
536	09.12.2021	Naraingarh District Ambala	186, 332, 353, 307 and 34 IPC and Sections 21(1), 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 13 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents under IPC.

3. The allegations are that the petitioner tried to crush the government officials, who had come to detect the illegal mining.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

5. Ld. counsel representing the State opposes bail.

REASONING:

6. On primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial or pre-trial incarceration at this stage. Furthermore, the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a primaf