Full Judgment
CRM No.M-43105 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-43105 of 2013 Date of Decision:-7.4.2014 Krishan Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Balkaran Singh Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Addl. AG Punjab for the State. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
(Oral) Petitioner Krishan Kumar son of Puran Chand has directed the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, by virtue of FIR No.52 dated 20.8.2013 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 323 and 324 read with section 34 IPC (the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC was later on added) by the police of Police Station Kabarwala, Distt.Sri Muktsar Sahib.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this respect. Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.11 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-43105 of 2013 2 4. Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel that since it is a case of version and cross version and the petitioner also sustained injuries, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
5. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 18.8.2013 at about 8.30 PM, as soon as, complainant Dharambir son of Sahib Ram came out of the house of Bahadur Ram, Member Panchayat, in the meantime, petitioner Krishan Kumar armed with gandasa, his son & co-accused Inder Kumar armed with Kasia, Suraj Bhan son of Pappu Ram armed with baseball, came in the street (place of occurrence). Accused Suraj Bhan raised a lalkara, to teach him a lesson for opposing them in the panchayat election. Thereafter, petitioner Krishan Kumar straightway gave a gandasa blow, which landed on the left side of head of the complainant, whereas accused Inder Kumar gave a kasia blow to him from its reverse side. PW Bahadur Ram saved him from the clutches of the accused. Having caused the injuries to the complainant, the accused slipped away from the place of occurrence with their respective weapons.
6. Meaning thereby, the petitioner is the main accused, who had inflicted the main injury with the gandasa on the head of the complainant, which was declared to be dangerous to life. The mere fact that the petitioner also sustained injuries and it s a case of version and cross version, ipso facto, is not a ground, muchless cogent, to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is the main accused in this case. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations, to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to recover the weapon of offence from him. In case, he is allowed the concession of anticipatory bail, then, Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.11 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-43105 of 2013 3 the police would be deprived from recovering the weapon of offence, case property and effective investigation, which would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution.
7. Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of weapons of offences from the accused and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. At the same time, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.
8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
9. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on merits during the trial of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this relevant direction. Sd/- 7.4.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.04.11 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh