Judgment:
CRM No.M-22369 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-22369 of 2014 Date of Decision:-8.7.2014 Mange Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Sunil Sihag, Advocate for the petitioner. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
(Oral) Petitioner Mange Lal son of Om Parkash, has directed the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.174 dated 13.6.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences of gang rape, punishable under sections 376(D), 452 IPC and section 3 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by the police of Police Station Ellenabad, Distt.Sirsa.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.
3. Ex-facie, the arguments of learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant/prosecutrix in the instant case and since he has not committed any offence, so, he is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.07.10 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-22369 of 2014 2 4. Concisely, the prosecution version, as culled out from the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix (name intentionally withheld), in substance, is as under:- “On dated 13.6.14 at around 12 p.m., three persons came to my house. One Mange Lal, to whom I knew already was called by me, while making a phone call to him to do some furniture work at my house. Mange Lal along with two other persons came to my house. One of them was Surjeet and other was Pawan. Both of them are the residents of village Bhuratwala, while Pawan is the resident of village Poharka. I knew Mange Lal and Pawan already. They brought Surjeet at my house first time. Surjeet after some time of his arrival started to sexually harass me. At that time, Surjeet and Pawan were sitting there, while Mange Ram had left. Surjeet pulled me to another room and forcibly and against my will done the illegal work (rape) with me. At that time, Pawan was sitting in the other room and my children were playing outside. When I made a noise then my sister-in-law (bua) Guddi wife of Karambir came from upward. But by this time, Surjeet against my will had already done illegal work (rape) with me. On being made noise by us, they ran away from the spot. I along with my bua went to the police station.”. 5. Meaning thereby, very direct and serious allegations are assigned that petitioner and his other co-accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy. He (petitioner) has brought his other co-accused Surjeet and Pawan to the house of prosecutrix, committed house trespass and gang rape with her. Therefore, to me, his custodial interrogation is necessary. In case, he is allowed the concession of pre-arrest bail, then, the police will be deprived from interrogating the petitioner and effective investigation in such a case of heinous offence of gang rape. It would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution, which to my mind, is not legally permissible. Thus, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
6. Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.07.10 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-22369 of 2014 3 arrest 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. Sequelly, 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.
7. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the seriousness of allegations of gang rape against him 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 for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such.
8. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on merits of the main case, in any manner, during the trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. Sd/- 8.7.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.07.10 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh