AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (oral)
Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case vide FIR No.43 dated 05.04.2026, under Sections 103, 109, 333, 351(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 61 BNS, Police station Rori, District Sirsa. This is the first application for anticipatory bail.
The facts, as narrated in the FIR, noticed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, in his order dated 31.07.2026, regarding which no dispute has been raised, are as follows:
'On 04.04.2026 i.e. yesterday, his mother was bringing woods. Shambhu and his son Tinku restrained the way of his mother Manjeet Kaur and told her that since her son Hardeep Singh had not advanced him the money, they shall have to face the consequences of the same. His mother then narrated the said incident to the family members upon which his father Leela Gir went to the house of Shambhu Singh to complain about it and told them that their said act is not correct. However, Shambhu Singh and Tinku started verbally abusing them and thus, an altercation happened between them. He further averred that thereafter as usual after dinner his family members went to sleep. His father Leela Gir was sleeping in the open courtyard while his brother Gurdeep Singh was sleeping in the veranda. He and his mother were sleeping inside the room. At around 10:30 pm, suddenly he heard some commotion. He and his mother then went outside and saw that his father was beaten by Shambhu Singh, Paramjeet @ Pamma, Tinku, Arshu, Paramjeet son of Amarjeet Singh and 2-3 other persons. He further averred that Shambhu was carrying axe, Tinku was carrying gandasi, Paramjeet (@ Pamma was carrying kapa while Arshu and Paramjeet were having dande. Said Shambhu, Tinku and Paramjeet alias Pamma inflicted injuries upon his father with their said respective weapons. Arshu, Paramjeet Singh and other 2-3 assailants dragged his brother Gurdeep Singh outside in the street and started inflicting injuries upon him with their dande. After inflicting injuries upon his father, the assailants went outside and then inflicted injuries upon his brother Gurdeep with gandasi and axe. He raised an alarm, upon which the assailants fled away from the spot along-with their respective weapons threatening them with dire consequences in future. They then got their father and brother admitted at Civil Hospital, Sirsa. His father was declared dead while his brother was referred to Higher Centre because of his severe injuries. They took his brother Gurdeep to Sukhmani Hospital, Bathinda, where his brother is taking medical treatment. He prayed for taking legal action against the said assailants.'
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, a child in conflict with law, was not named in the FIR and his name figured in the supplementary statement of the complainant. It is argued that allegations of assault were collectively made against all the assailants and no particular act or injury was attributed to the petitioner individually. Police had already arrested 9 persons. Petitioner, who was 16 years of age, was ready to join investigation and cooperate.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of State and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail arguing that supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded, implicating the petitioner on the very day of FIR. Petitioner was an active participant in the occurrence, leaving one person dead and two injured. Even though no injury to deceased was attributed to the petitioner, his custodial interrogation was required to effect recoveries and for effective investigation of the case.
Petitioner has been booked by the police for offence of murder of Leela Gir. His custodial interrogation would be required to elicit information regarding the sequence of events which led to commission of offence and to effect recoveries. Anticipatory bail being an extra-ordinary remedy is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the accused has been falsely involved in the crime.
Allegations against the petitioner are grave, serious and specific. There are no extra ordinary circumstances made out to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail, at this stage will not advance the cause of justice and would amount to undue interference in the statutory investigational powers of the police, which is not permissible.
Dismissed.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.