AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.113 dated 20.07.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 110, 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 324(4) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Juikalan, District Bhiwani.
For the cause of convenience, the relevant factual milieu of the case is drawn from the order dated 12.08.2026 passed by the concerned Sessions Judge (whereby anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was rejected), reads thus:
“3.The present case was registered on the complainant of Rohit son of Shri Parveen, resident of Village Jui Kalan, on the allegations that he is working at Unique Hair Saloon at Tosham turn, Loharu Road, Jui Kalan. Adjacent to their shop, there is a Car Decoration shop belonging to Abhishek @ Shunty and Narender @ Billu. On 19.07.2026, at about 9.00 P.M, Narender @ Billu was sitting in his Bolero car in front of his shop. In the meantime, a Camper bearing registration No.HR-61F-4536 reached and Goliya and Vikas alighted from it. They were having sticks in their hands. Both of them started beating Narender @ Billu from both sides, while he was sitting in the vehicle and dragged him down. As soon as he came out from the shop, two boys sitting in the Camper reversed the vehicle and rammed into the Bolero. Due to said impact, the Bolero directly hit him and he fell down. The driver of the Camper was Sandeep and Vikram was sitting with him. Sandeep repeatedly rammed the vehicle while he was lying between the Bolero and the vehicle repeatedly ran over his leg. Apart from them, two-three boys were sitting in a KIA car on the road. Due to old enmity of all these persons with Billu, they repeatedly rammed the vehicle with intention to kill him. Thereafter, on hearing noise, nearby people gathered and they fled from the spot. Thereafter, he was shifted to general hospital by his family members. Request was made to take legal action against the culprits. On the basis of these allegations,the present case under Sections 110,190,191(2),191(3) and 324(4) of BNS was registered. Spot was inspected. CCTV footage were taken into possession. During investigations, accused Mohit @ Golia and Vikram @ Ratha were arrested, who on interrogation suffered their disclosure statements and in pursuance of their disclosure statements, they got demarcated the place of occurrence and accused Vikram got recovered the vehicle bearing registration No.HR61F-4536 while accused Mohit got recovered the “danda” used in the commission of crime. The vehicles which were taken into possession were got mechanically examined. During investigation, Narender was joined in the investigation and his statement was recorded. During further investigation, accused Vikas alias Kala and Sandeep alias Bhola were arrested, who on interrogation they suffered their disclosure statements and in pursuance of their disclosure statements, they got demarcated the place of occurrence and accused Vikas also got recovered one “danda” used in the commission of crime. xx xx xx xx”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR in question reflects that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are wholly concocted, improbable and devoid of merits. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as he was neither named in the FIR nor any specific or overt act has been attributed to him. It has been further contended that the name of the petitioner has figured in the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which per se is not admissible in eyes of law & the same cannot be made basis to show his complicity in the offence in question. It has been further contended that there is no incriminating material available against the petitioner to suggest that the petitioner is involved in the commission of offence. According to learned counsel, there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from him. Learned counsel has further asserted that the petitioner is willing to join investigation as and when required; shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witness and shall abide by any condition(s) that may be imposed by this Court in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.
In oppugnation, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations against him are serious in nature. Referring to reply dated 08.09.2026, which is already on record, learned State counsel has iterated that during the course of investigation the role of the petitioner has surfaced which discloses his active involvement in the assault as a member of the unlawful assembly. The relevant part of the status reply reads thus:
“14.The role of present petitioner:- The name of present petitioner came to light in statement of injured Narender @ Billu (Annexure R-5). The custodial interrogation of present petitioner is required for recovery of KIA vehicle. Accused persons Mohit @ Goliya and Vikas @ Kala came in KIA vehicle of the present petitioner at the place of occurrence. The Present petitioner was present at some distance from the place of occurrence in his KIA vehicle which can be seen in CCTV footage of incident in question. The accused persons Vikas @ Kala and Sandeep @ Bhola after causing injuries to injured persons sat in vehicle of the present petitioner. The present petitioner actively participated in present crime. The location of mobile phone of the present petitioner is also indicating towards his guilt and same is annexed herewith as Annexure R-14.
15.That present petitioner is not declared proclaimed offender in present case. He is found to be involved in one more criminal case FIR No.270 dated 14.06.2020, under Sections 323,325,341,506 of IPC, Police Station Tosham, Bhiwani and the trail of this case is pending.”
Raising submission in tandem with the aforesaid reply, learned State counsel has iterated that the investigation, in the present case, is still under-way and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. Given the nature of allegations, his custodial interrogation is necessary for the recovery of the vehicle in question. It has been further 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. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the petition in hand.
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, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. A perusal of the prosecution case as also the material available on record, prima facie, reflects that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement of injured, namely, Narender @ Billu. The prosecution case further, prima facie, reflects that accused – Mohit @ Goliya and Vikas @ Kala arrived at the place of occurrence in the vehicle in question (Model KIA) which belonged to the petitioner. He is stated to be present at some distance from the place of occurrence in the vehicle in question, which also stands corroborated by the CCTV footage. After causing injuries to the injured person(s), accused – Vikas @ Kala and Sandeep @ Bhola sat in the aforesaid vehicle of the petitioner which indicates the active participation of the petitioner in the commission of offence in question. The record further corroborates the involvement of the petitioner as the location of the mobile phone of the petitioner shows that he was present at the place of occurrence which establishes his involvement in the occurrence in question. From a prima facie reading of the FIR and the material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that the allegations against the petitioner are wholly vague or devoid of substance. The plea that the petitioner was not named in the initial FIR does not inspire confidence at this stage. The material collected so far reflects prima facie evidence of common intention and joint participation of the petitioner and co-accused, as reflected from the disclosure statement. The alleged involvement of the petitioner, though emerging at a subsequent stage, is supported by material collected during the course of investigation which lends corroboration to the prosecution version. In the considered view of this Court, the veracity of the disclosure statement(s) and the extent of the involvement of the petitioner in the offence, are matter(s) requiring thorough investigation which can be effectively undertaken only through custodial interrogation. In the considered opinion of this Court, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this stage, would hamper the ongoing investigation and may impede the recovery of material evidence. At the stage of considering the plea for anticipatory bail, the Court is not to evaluate the evidence but only to see whether prima facie allegations disclose the commission of a serious offence.
A perusal of the petition in hand reflects that the petitioner has himself admitted that he is involved in one more criminal case. The criminal antecedent(s) reveal that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a tendency to indulge in criminal activities. Such antecedent(s) cannot be brushed aside and is a relevant consideration while adjudicating the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The criminal antecedent(s) of the petitioner also raise a reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he may indulge in similar criminal activities, misuse the concession of bail or interfere with the fair course of justice. The possibility of his absconding or influencing prosecution witnesses also cannot be ruled out.
The plea of false implication raised by the petitioner is also a disputed question of fact and involves appreciation of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage. The same can only be adjudicated upon the conclusion of the investigation or during the course of trial. In the considered opinion of this Court, granting anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to hamper the on-going investigation. 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. Furthermore, the Court below has already declined the plea of the petitioner after considering the relevant factors, including the manner in which the name of the petitioner surfaced during the investigation and the fact that the vehicle in question belonged to the petitioner and is yet to be recovered. 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 State v. 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.”
Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the specific role assigned to the petitioner as also the necessity of custodial interrogation for recovery of the vehicle in question & to unravel the truth, 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.
In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:
The instant petition is 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.