Judgment:
CRM No.M-18732 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH103CRM No.M-18732 of 2014 Date of Decision:11.07.2014 Vijay Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Kamal Jeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Vijay Kumar son of Ami Lal, posted as a Constable in the Police Control Room, Bathinda(PCR), has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.55 dated 21.02.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 365, 342, 376 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
3. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner was working in the PCR, Bathinda and since, he has been Rani Seema 2014.07.16 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-18732 of 2014 2 falsely implicated in this case by the complainant, so, he is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail, lacks merit.
4. The pith and substance of the prosecution version emanating from the record and FIR(Annexure P-1), inter alia, is that, the prosecutrix (name intentionally withheld) was residing with her brother complainant- Gurpreet Singh son of Baljit Singh(for brevity “the complainant”.). Amandeep Kaur, co-accused of the petitioner, was residing in his house as a tenant. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in detail in the FIR, in all, the prosecution claimed that the petitioner, who was a Constable in the Punjab Police, has hatched a criminal conspiracy with his other co-accused, to kidnap, illegally detained and his other main co-accused repeatedly committed gang-rape with the prosecutrix at different places. Very serious and direct allegations are assigned that the petitioner has arranged accommodation for the main accused and facilitated kidnapping and rape of the prosecutrix by the other co-accused. Meaning thereby, very specific allegations of commission of the pointed offences are attributed to him (petitioner). The matter was reported to the police by the complainant. The DSP(Crime) inquired into the matter and recommended for registration of the case. In the background of these allegations, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner depicted here-in-above.
5. Keeping in view the indicated factors into focus, to my mind, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, particularly when, instead of protecting the prosecutrix, being a police Rani Seema 2014.07.16 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-18732 of 2014 3 official, he himself has indulged to commit the offences, in question. Hence, his custodial interrogation is essential in this case to unearth the scam.
6. Sequelly, the plea of false implication of the petitioner was rightly negated by the Additional Sessions Judge, by way of order dated 07.04.2014(Annexure P-3), which, in substance, is as under:- “During investigation, Shivcharanpreet Kaur along with retired SI Gurcharan Kaur appeared before Deputy Superintendent of Police(D), Bathinda and filed an application along with affidavit, to the effect that during night time of 28.06.2013, she was kidnapped by 4/5 persons in car and she was kept by them at various places. Satinder Singh @ Lali son of Mukhtiar Singh committed rape against her wishes. Constable Vijay Kumar, No.686/Bathinda, Amandeep Kaur wife of Manjeet Singh along with co-accused and other 4/5 unidentified persons played an active role for kidnapping and also providing safe place to Satinder Singh @ Lali, who committed rape against her wishes. Subsequently, offences 365, 342, 376, 120-B of Indian Penal Code were added. After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned Addl.PP for the State and going through the record and allegations levelled by the victim against Vijay Kumar accused/applicant(Police official of Punjab Police, Bathinda No.686) are that he played an active role and assisted the main accused Satinder Singh @ Lali who kidnapped/abducting the victim and further helped the main accused by providing safe place where Satinder Singh @ Lali physically/sexually abused victim. Since atrocities against women are rising day by day. Accused/applicant who is police official is supposed to help weaker section of the society not to indulge himself in such activities.”. 7. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. In case, the anticipatory bail is allowed to him, then the investigating agency would be deprived to, ascertain the truth, unearth the scam, modus operandi, involvement of the petitioner, recover the case property and effective investigation. It will naturally adversely affect and Rani Seema 2014.07.16 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-18732 of 2014 4 weaken the case of the prosecution, which to me, is not legally permissible.
8. Moreover, the anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine/course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depends on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which, should enter the judicial verdict. Not only that, the power under Section 438 Cr.PC is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. At the same time, it is now well-settled proposition of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of 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. 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 in this relevant connection.
9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts & circumstances oozing out from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, Rani Seema 2014.07.16 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-18732 of 2014 5 would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. July 11, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Rani Seema 2014.07.16 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh