AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.249 dated 30.08.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 [Section 115(2) of BNS 2023 added later on] and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Kalanwali, District Dabwali, Haryana.
The case set up in the FIR in question is as follows:-
“Statement of Rai Singh, son of Nikka Ram, resident of Village Chakeriya, District Sirsa, age 47 years, Mobile Number 87088-37526: Stated that I am a resident of the above address and work in agriculture, living by making a dhani on Jalalana Road, Village Chakeriya. My elder son is Aditya and the younger is Manish alias Gadi. The elder son is unmarried, and Manish has done a love marriage, over which arguments etc. keep taking place between me and Manish. Today at around 9:30 PM, an altercation occurred with my son Manish, during which Manish hit me with a brick. When I was about to nab him, my son Aditya arrived at the spot outside. At that moment, Manish fired directly at me with an illegal pistol he had in his possession with the intention to kill me. When my son Aditya tried to overpower Manish, Manish tried to fire at me again, but the pistol misfired (did not operate). He left the pistol and fled from the spot. Police were informed, and my nephew Manoj, son of Balwant, brought me to the Government Hospital, Kalanwali for treatment, where my dressing/first-aid is being done. My son Manish assaulted me and fired directly at me to kill me. I have dictated my statement in the presence of my nephew Manoj, listened to it, understood it, and it is correct. Sd/-RAI SINGH.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor was any specific role or injury attributed to him. It is further contended that as per the allegations in the FIR, the assault upon the complainant was attributed to his son Manish, who allegedly assaulted him with a brick and thereafter fired at him with an illegal pistol. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been implicated subsequently only on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Manish. It is further contended that there is no call detail record, financial transaction or other material connecting him with the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the main accused Manish has already been arrested and the illegal pistol has been recovered from him. He has further argued that the role assigned to the petitioner is that he, along with one Maninder Singh, had supplied the illegal pistol to the co-accused; however, there is no evidence or material available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.
Learned counsel has asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.
Per contra, learned State counsel, has vehemently opposed the grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by iterating that, though the petitioner is not named in the FIR, his name has surfaced during investigation, in the disclosure statement of co-accused Manish. Learned State counsel has further urged that, as per the disclosure statement of co-accused Manish, the petitioner and one Maninder Singh had allegedly supplied the illegal weapon and cartridge used in the commission of the offence and, therefore, his custodial interrogation is necessary to ascertain the source of supply of illegal weapon. Learned State counsel further submits that another co-accused, namely Maninder Singh, is yet to be apprehended. Given the severity of the offence and no clean antecedents, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation and to unearth the case of the prosecution. On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
As per the case set up by the prosecution, it has come on record that during investigation, the name of the present petitioner surfaced in the disclosure statement of the co-accused Manish, as one of the persons from whom the illegal weapon/cartridge had allegedly been procured. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while declining the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, has also noticed that the role attributed to the petitioner pertains to supplying the illegal weapon and source of supply of illegal weapon is yet to be ascertained from him.
The fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and that no recovery is to be effected from him, cannot be a ground at this stage, for extending him the concession of anticipatory bail, particularly when his alleged involvement has surfaced during the course of investigation. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the allegations in the FIR are use of an illegal firearm in an attempt on the life of the complainant. The investigation is at an initial stage and as argued by learned State counsel, one of the alleged suppliers of the weapon is yet to be apprehended.
No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.
It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation, appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)
“6.We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”
In view of the seriousness of the allegations, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.