Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
Chamkaur Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M-49338 of 2023
Decided On : 21-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Kuljit Singh Bal, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondent: Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sultan Singh Gill, Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 4.

The court emphasized that the misuse of anticipatory bail by the accused justifies its cancellation to protect the complainant's life and liberty.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 324, 506, 148, 149, 326, 307 - Cancellation of anticipatory bail - The petitioner sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents due to allegations of misuse and threats - The Court found credible evidence of intimidation and injury inflicted on the petitioner by the respondents - The Court emphasized that bail should not be misused and can be revoked if such misuse is evident. (Paras 1, 4, 8, 10, 11)

(B) Judicial Discretion - The Court highlighted that once bail is granted, it should be cancelled only upon clear evidence of misuse, requiring careful judicial consideration. (Paras 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, alleging threats and an injury sustained due to their actions, supported by a DDR recorded against them.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the private respondents had indeed misused their bail, warranting its cancellation.

Issues: The main issues involved the alleged misuse of bail by the respondents and the credibility of the threats and injuries reported by the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that bail can be revoked if there is credible evidence of misuse, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint in such matters.

Result: The anticipatory bail granted to the private respondents is cancelled.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The petitioner is seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar to respondents No.2 to 4 vide order dated 01.09.2023 (Annexure P-2) in case FIR No.46 dated 11.06.2023 registered under Sections 323/324/506/148/149 of the IPC (Sections 326/307 of the IPC added lateron) at Police Station Ramdas, District Amritsar Rural.

2. This Court on 10.10.2023 had noticed the following contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner, while drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 01.09.2023 which has been annexed as Annexure P-2, has submitted that the learned trial Court made the interim order dated 11.08.2023 absolute only on the statement made by the learned counsel for the accused that they had joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He submits that not only was the said order perverse but it also deserved to be set aside, since it is matter of record that the accused had been extending threats of dire consequences to the complainant and DDR No.18 dated 17.09.2023 (Annexure P-5) had been recorded against the accused.

Learned State counsel is directed to file a detailed affidavit as to whether the private respondents i.e. Gurbachan Singh, Surjit Singh and Harnek Singh had joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency in compliance of order dated 11.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in case FIR No.46 dated 11.06.2023 under Sections 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 of IPC (Sections 326/307 of IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Amritsar Rural. Besides, the said affidavit shall also detail the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner qua the alleged threats extended by the private respondents, pursuant to which DDR No.18 dated 17.09.2023 (Annexure P-5) has been recorded."

3. Thereafter, a detailed affidavit of Dr. Riputapan Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Ajnala, Amritsar Rural was filed on behalf of respondent No.1-State following by reply on behalf of the private respondents on 08.11.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated his submissions made on the previous dates. It has also been submitted that after the private respondents had been extended the concession of interim bail on 11.08.2023 by the Trial Court, they had encircled the petitioner outside his house on 20.08.2023 at about 06:00 P.M. and inflicted injury on one of his eyes which had led to considerable damage. In support, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P-3. Ever since then, he was being threatened by the private respondents to either compromise the matter with them and withdraw the FIR in question or else face dire consequences. Resultantly, the petitioner was left with no other choice but to approach this Court for protection of his life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents. In support, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P-4. It was only after issuance of directions of this Court to the police, the matter was inquired into, leading to the lodging of a DDR against the private respondents. In support, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P-5. A prayer has, therefore, vehemently been made that it was evident that the private respondents had been blatantly misusing the concession of bail granted to them and as a result of which the petitioner was facing continuous harassment as well as threat to his life for which the bail granted to the private respondents required to be cancelled.

5. Learned State counsel while drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph 13 of the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1-State, has not disputed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner qua a DDR recorded vide GD No.18 dated 17.09.2023 having indeed been recorded against

Click Here to Read the rest of this document