Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 1006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
Tek Ram Dahiya – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M NO. 26341 of 2022
Decided On : 07-08-2024
Mr. Ishnoor Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Parveen Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate and Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
The court upheld the grant of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that seriousness of allegations alone does not justify cancellation without evidence of threats or flight risk.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439(2) - Anticipatory bail - Cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents challenged - Seriousness of allegations regarding forgery and fabrication of documents considered - Court found no merit in the petition for cancellation of bail - The reasoning of the Addl. Sessions Judge upheld. (Paras 11 and 12)
(B) Bail - Considerations for grant and cancellation differ - No evidence of threats or flight risk by respondents - Charges framed against respondents, but custodial interrogation not required. (Paras 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents for allegedly obtaining government jobs through forged documents. Multiple FIRs had been registered against them for similar offenses. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Addl. Sessions Judge's reasoning for granting bail, noting no threats or attempts to flee from justice by the respondents. (Paras 11 and 12)
Issues: Whether the anticipatory bail granted should be cancelled based on the seriousness of allegations and potential influence on the investigation. (Paras 7 and 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the seriousness of allegations alone does not warrant cancellation of bail without evidence of threats or flight risk. (Paras 11 and 12)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. is for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide order dated 24.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Panipat in case FIR No.444 dated 09.09.2015 (Annexure P-2) registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, 1860 at Police Station Sadar Panipat, District Panipat.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.09.2015, a complaint was given by the petitioner/complainant-Tek Ram son of Chander Singh to the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range. It was stated that in the complaint that Tejbir Rathi (respondent No.2) son of Ram Kala who was posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Village Chhajpur, District Panipat as a Sanskrit teacher had been appointed on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. He had submitted a forged S.C. Certificate for getting employment as a guest teacher. It was also alleged in the complaint that Tejbir Rathi (respondent No.2) was habitual of manufacturing illegal and forged documents, affidavits and appointment letters for which several FIRs had been registered against him. As per the complainant, it had also been found that respondent No.3-Poonam wife of Tejbir Rathi had been appointed as a Sanskrit teacher on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. Legal action was sought.
3. On the basis of the aforementioned complaint, FIR No.444 dated 09.09.2015 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC P.S. Sadar, Panipat came to be registered against respondent Nos.2 and 3. The investigation was being carried out but was stayed by this Court. Thereafter, the stay order was vacated and the investigation was re-started.
4. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 sought the concession of anticipatory bail and were granted the said concession by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Panipat vide order dated 24.05.2022 (Annexure P-4).
5. The grant of anticipatory bail has been challenged in the present petition.
6. Meanwhile, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. stands submitted and charges have been framed against respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 24.05.2024 and the case is now posted for recording of prosecution evidence.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had multiple cases registered against them for forging and fabricating documents and obtaining Government jobs on the basis of the said documents. The seriousness of the allegations had not been considered by the Sessions Court while granting anticipatory bail to the private respondents. In fact, the State exchequer had suffered a huge loss. The private respondents had not cooperated with the investigation. There was every possibility that they would influence the investigation and create hindrance in the arrest of the other accused. He, therefore contends that the anticipatory bail granted to the private respondents be cancelled and they be committed to custody.
8. The learned State counsel while referring to the reply dated 06.07.2022 contends that on account of the seriousness of the allegations, the order dated 24.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) granting bail to the private respondents was liable to be set aside and they ought to be committed to custody. In fact, the private respondents were habitual offenders with multiple cases registered against them. He, however, fairly concedes that the State had not preferred any application for cancellation of anticipatory bail, that the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. now stood presented and that charges had been framed against the private respondents on 24.05.2024.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 while referring to the reply dated 13.07.2023 contends that though there were multiple cases against the answering respondents, it was the present petitioner/complainant who was the first informant in those cases. The private respondents had always cooperated with the investigatio
