AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jitendra Chauhan, J.—By filing the present petition u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 458 dated 3.11.2012, registered under Sections 302, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Manimajra, Union Territory, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not committed any offence. The deceased alongwith petitioner and others consumed smack. The petitioner made phone calls to the family of the deceased, but when they did not come forward, the petitioner dropped the deceased at his house. The instant FIR was registered on 4.7.2012, after a delay of eleven months, when the poison was detected in the FSL report. He further submits that two persons namely Gurmukh Singh and Sunil have been arrested and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the UT, Chandigarh opposes the prayer of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is evading his arrest for the last eleven months. He further informs that the investigation is still in progress.
Heard.
In the viscera report, the poison was detected. During investigation, it has come on record that the petitioner and other persons were in the company of the deceased during the night prior to his death. There are specific allegation against the petitioner and his co-accused, that they left the deceased at his house in unconscious condition. It is also stated in the FIR that the deceased had taken some intoxicant and the petitioner and others had given him some medicines. However, in the next morning, he was found dead. The present FIR is under Sections 302, 120-B of IPC. The investigation is going on.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court in State rep. By the State Rep. by the C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma, has held as under:-
The custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order u/s 438 of Cr.P.C.
In the present case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant any discretionary relief to the petitioner.
Dismissed. However, respondent-UT, Chandigarh is directed to furnish affidavit as to what action has been initiated against the erring police officials, in view of the report dated 4.1.2013, prepared by the Police Complaints Authority, UT, Chandigarh.