Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 237
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Savita – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M No. 2524 of 2024
Decided On : 29-02-2024
For the Parties :Mr. Rakesh Nehra Senior, Advocate, Mr. Vikalp Hooda, Ms. Shivani Jaglan, Mr. R.K. Singla DAG, Haryana
The main legal point established is the need to balance the rights of the accused with the seriousness of the allegations, and the importance of imposing stringent conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.
Headnote:
Corruption - Anticipatory Bail - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 7A, 13(1), 13(2), 384, 389/34 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved police officials accused of misusing their positions and conspiring with an advocate to extort money from a rape victim in exchange for a compromise. The victim later retracted her allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the accused police officials, citing their clean antecedents and the need to balance their rights with the seriousness of the allegations. The court also highlighted the need for stringent conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Issues: The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the need for custodial interrogation, and the rights of the accused under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the rights of the accused with the need for stringent conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. It also emphasized the need for compliance with bail conditions and the potential consequences of false accusations.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail petitions, subject to strict conditions, and directed the police to issue general directions to prevent illegal compromises in cases of sexual assault allegations.
Judgment
Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J. :-
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
205 14.11.2023 Bond Kalan, District 7, 7A, 13(1) and 13(2) of the
Charkhi Dadri, Haryana. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 384, 389/34 IPC (added later on).
1. Ms. Savita, who was an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, and Rajbir Singh, who was a Sub Inspector of Police and posted as SHO, apprehending arrest in the above captioned FIR, have come up before this court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail, on the allegations of misusing their official positions and conspiring with the victim’s Advocate, and probably also with the alleged victim of rape, and facilitated a compromise between the victim and the accused for Rs. Twelve lacs, out of which the Police officials and the Advocate received Rs. Eight lacs, and after the accused agreed to pay the money, the victim refused to undergo any medical examination and finally in her statement recorded under 164 CrPC by the Judicial Magistrate, stated on oath that nothing was done to her; however when the higher police officials heard about the misdeeds, they inquired into the matter and registered the present FIR.
2. As per petitions, both the petitioners have clean antecedents.
3. I have heard counsel for both the parties and gone through the record of both the petitions.
4. Petitioners’ Advocates pray for bail by imposing any stringent conditions including voluntary declaration of their assets as well as of their spouses to demonstrate their honesty. The petitioners’ counsel contended that custodial interrogation and pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and family.
5. The Counsel appearing for the State has strenuously opposed the bail and submitted that given the serious nature of allegations, the petitioners’ custodial interrogation is necessary for recovery of the share they had received out of Rs. Twelve lacs paid by the accused and to understand their modus operandi and find out how many more persons were enticed, and honey trapped.
6. The facts of the case are taken from FIR (Annexure P-1, in CRM-M-411-2024), which was registered on 14.11.2023 based on a complaint made by Karambir Singh, Security In-charge, Office of Superintendent of Police, Charkhi Dadri. On 21.7.2022, i.e., around one year and three months earlier to the registration of the FIR captioned above, another FIR No. 136 dated 19.7.2022 under Sections 376, 506 IPC was registered at the instance of the victim ‘K’, wife of Vikki against Jitender Kumar alias Subla. The complainant received secret information that a dubious compromise had occurred in FIR No. 136 under section 376 IPC. The petitioner ASI Savita, and Smt. Naresh, Advocate of Charkhi Dadri, and one Head Constable, Sanjay Kumar, had conspired and extorted Rs. Twelve Lacs (INR Rs.12,00,000/-) from Jitender Kumar, who had been arraigned as an accused in FIR No. 136 under 376 IPC. The victim ‘K’, SI/SHO Rajbir Singh (No. 526) (petitioner), ASI Savita (No. 298) (petitioner), HC Sanjay, and Smt. Naresh, the Advocate, distributed the hush money, out of which the victim ‘K’ got Rs. four lacs, and the remaining eight lacs were divided amongst others. After that, the victim ‘K’ recorded her statement under Section 164 CrPC, in which she resiled from the allegations of rape by Jitender, as mentioned in her complaint, and even refused to undergo her medical examination and stated that nothing had happened with her. The secret informer also said that to accomplish the compromise, the victim, ‘K,’ was made to sleep in the house of Smt. Naresh Advocate during the night so that she does not change her mind. The informer further said that the compromise had taken place because of the involvement of HC Sanjay and Smt. Naresh, Advocate, and it had become the talk of the town, and people were complaining that the police were fueling the corruption.
7. After receipt of secr
