AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.500 dated 26.10.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(3), 190, 115(2), 117(2), 351(2), 118(1) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Mujesar, District Faridabad.
For the sake of ease, relevant factual milieu is drawn from the order dated 09.09.2026 passed by the concerned learned Sessions Court (whereby anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was rejected), reads thus:
““2. As per police reply, the aforesaid case FIR was got registered on the basis of complaint moved by complainant Lalit Saini son of Gajraj, R/o village Sarurpur, Faridabad wherein he has alleged that on 24.10.2025 at about 09/09.30 p.m., he alongwith his brother Sunil and his friend was sitting at his vegetable shop, then two vehicles make Swift and Swift Dzire and two bikes carrying 10-12 persons reached there. The assailants armed with country made pistols, iron rods and axe entered into his shop with the intention to kill him. One of the assailants put a country made pistol on his temple and when his brother tried to intervene, then assailants threatened that complainant would be done to death. In the meantime, 10-12 persons launched an attack upon the complainant with iron rod and axe. On hearing the commotion, Bhagat and Tilak also reached at the spot and he became unconscious.””
Learned counsel has submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are wholly concocted, improbable and devoid of any merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. It has been further argued that the petitioner has been nominated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement(s) of co-accused, which per se is not admissible in law and the same cannot be made basis to implicate the petitioner in the present case. Learned counsel has urged that no specific overt act, use of weapon or particular injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel has iterated that main accused persons, namely, Yash Dagar, Mukul Keena, Yash Tewatia, Ankit Phogat and Manish have already been granted the concession of bail.
Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation. It has been urged that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.
Learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner and his co-accused armed with country made pistols, iron rods and axe entered the shop of the complainant and caused serious injuries to the complainant. It has been further argued that investigation, in the present case, is still under way and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. Given the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. It has been contended that, in case, the petitioner is accorded the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also influence/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
As per the prosecution case, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. A perusal of the prosecution case, as well as the material available on record, prima facie, reveals that the petitioner and his co-accused, entered the shop of the complainant with the intention of causing his death. It is further borne out that one of the assailants pointed a country-made pistol at his temple, and when brother of the complainant attempted to intervene, the assailants threatened to kill the complainant. In the meantime, 10–12 persons attacked the complainant with iron rods and an axe. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the manner in which the assailants attacked the complainant coupled with the nature and gravity of the allegations; this Court, prima facie, finds that the petitioner is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.
The other pleas raised by the petitioner, including those of false implication etc., are matters to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence during the course of trial. Such disputed questions of fact(s) cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.
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 plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). 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 a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation appear to establish 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. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to the dicta passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as StateState v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Supreme Court held as under, relevant whereof reads as under:
““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.””
The material which has come on record, the preliminary investigation and the nature of offence, appear to establish a reasonable basis for his accusation. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.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.