Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajbir Sehrawat, J.
Prem Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M No. 2150 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 19-01-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail based on the absence of new facts requiring further investigation and the petitioner's compliance with joining the investigation when called upon.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a third petition for anticipatory bail in a case involving multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 307 IPC added later, without any specific need for the petitioner's involvement in the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, noting that no new facts requiring further investigation had emerged, and the petitioner was required to join the investigation when called upon.
Issues: The main issue was the addition of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC without specific need for the petitioner's involvement in the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the absence of new facts requiring further investigation and the petitioner's commitment to join the investigation when called upon.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to be released on bail upon arrest, subject to fulfilling certain conditions and joining the investigation when required.
JUDGMENT
Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - This is third petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.274 dated 06.11.2020, registered under Sections 323, 325, 341, 380, 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Section 307 IPC (added later on by replacing Section 308 IPC), at Police Station Krishna Gate, Thanesar, Kurukshetra (Haryana).
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in the same gamut of facts involving the same allegations, the petitioner was already granted anticipatory bail by this Court. However, now the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC has been added by changing the offence punishable under Section 308 of IPC. However, the petitioner is not required for any specific purposes of investigation.
3. Notice of motion.
4. Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Additional Advocate, General, Haryarna accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Akash Mehta, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the complainant.
5. It is submitted by learned State counsel being instructed by SI Ramchandra and being assisted by the counsel for the complainant that the offence punishable under Section 307 has been added on the basis of medical opinion which has declared some of the injuries attributed to the petitioner has dangerous to life. Hence, the petitioner is required for further investigation. However, it is not disputed that no new fact except the medical opinion has come up during the investigation, which required any specific further investigation by the police.
6. In view of the above, but without commenting anymore on merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bonds/surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer.
7. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
The court's decision emphasized the requirement for new facts necessitating further investigation and the petitioner's obligation to cooperate with the investigation when called upon.
Anticipatory bail may be granted where the belated addition of a serious criminal charge lacks medical justification and specific attribution to the accused, particularly when the accused has previou....
The court emphasized the need for tangible grounds for anticipatory bail and the duty to balance individual freedom and police investigation rights.
The main legal point established is that joining the investigation and undergoing custody under certain sections of the IPC can be grounds for granting anticipatory bail.
The court's decision was influenced by the principle that the subsequent addition of an offence to the FIR did not justify custodial interrogation when the petitioner was already on regular bail and ....
The main legal point established is the court's discretion to grant anticipatory bail based on the circumstances of the case and the petitioner's previous grant of regular bail.
The court's decision to grant anticipatory bail was influenced by the absence of misuse of bail, the undertaking of the applicant, and the specific conditions imposed for the grant of anticipatory ba....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant may be arrested for a non-bailable offense, the need to disclose specific even....
Repeated anticipatory bail applications without a change in circumstances can be considered an abuse of the court process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
