IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Pawan - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. - Respondent
CRA-S No. 2394 of 2024
Decided On : 20-11-2024
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J.
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
| 177 | 12.07.2020 | Agroha, District Hisar | 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 452, 365 IPC and 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 |
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court in appeal under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989, against impugned order dated 02.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby his bail application was dismissed.
2. In paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:
“3. That brief facts of the case are that on 11.07.2020, an information was received in the Police Station through telephone from Control Room, Hisar to the effect that Dheera Ram, Suresh and Ferozi sons of Manphool, Rani wife of Suresh and Mamta wife of Dheera Ram are admitted in MAMC, Agroha in injured condition. On this, Sub Inspector Balwan alongwith other police officials reached at MAMC Agroha and collected ruqqa and M.L.R.s and sought the opinion of doctor regarding fitness of injured to make the statement but the doctor opined the patients unfit to make the statement. On 12.07.2020, a message regarding death of Ferozi was received. On this Inspector Gurmeet Singh alongwith other police officials reached at MAMC, Agroha and sought the opinion of doctor regarding fitness of injured to make the statement. Thereafter, Inspector Gurmeet Singh recorded the statement of Dheera Ram, who was declared fit to make the statement. Dheera Ram got his statement recorded in presence of his family members, wherein he alleged that “he is employed at Water Works. On 11.07.2020, at about 4.00 p.m., he was on duty near the house of Sarpanch of village Mothsara, where, Anmol son of Parveen and Pawan (petitioner-accused) son of Bajrang, residents of village Asrawan came on a motorcycle and started abusing him. They gave him slaps and fists blows. Upon hearing noise, number of persons gathered at the spot and on seeing them, both of them fled away on their motor cycle. He came back to his house and narrated incident to his family members. Thereafter, at about 5.30 p.m., when, they were present in their house, Anmol son of Parveen, Rahul son of Dharampal, Rakesh and Sunder sons of Jaina Ram Nai, Vishnu son of Om Parkash, Wazir son of Balwant, Sonu, Pawan (petitioner-accused) and Surnder @ Kalu sons of Bajrang, residents of Asrawan armed with lathi, danda and iron rods came to his house and started abusing them in the name of their caste. They forcibly entered into their house and dragged them out at the road. Thereafter they attacked upon them with lathi, danda and iron rods. When female members of his family tried to save them, accused also inflicted injuries to his (Dheera Ram) wife Mamta, sister-in-law Rani, his brother Suresh and Ferozi. In the meantime, his cousin Pardeep and Kuldeep came at the spot and on seeing them, accused ran away from the spot. The enmity behind the occurrence was that the accused used to consume liquor at the chowk of the village and he made complaint to media and police against them. All the injured were got admitted in the hospital by Pardeep. During treatment, Ferozi died on account of injuries sustained in the occurrence. A request for taking necessary action against the accused was made”. On the statement of complainant Dheera Ram, present case FIR was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 365 and 452 IPC and Section 3 of SC & ST Act against total 9 accused persons ie (i). Anmol, (ii). Rahul, (iii). Rakesh, (iv). Sunder, (v) Vishnu, (vi) Wazir (vii) Sonu, (viii) Pawan and (ix) Surender @ Kalu at Police Station Agroha District Hisar and investigation was carried out.”
4. The petitioner’s counsel submits as follows:
“4. That as per contents averments made i
AI
The court denied bail based on prima facie evidence of the accused's involvement in serious crimes, emphasizing the need to uphold justice.
The court emphasized the principle of parity in bail applications, allowing bail when co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail, highlighting the absence of evidence suggesting tampering.
The court established that the bar on bail under the Atrocities Act does not apply to applications made under Sec. 439 of the CrPC, and emphasized the importance of distinguishing between instigation....
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the offense and the risk of tampering with evidence, emphasizing the need for judicial integrity.
Cancellation of bail – There is clear distinction between cancellation of bail on the considerations provided under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. and reversal of order of bail by superior Court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.