Single judge bail jurisdiction dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail filed by a petitioner charged with murder. The court noted the seriousness of the charge and the lack of reasons in the final report for the investigator's conclusion of innocence, deeming it an unfit case for bail.
The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM No. M-10489 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-10489 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.4.2009
D.C. Alias Deputy Ram
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Rajan Gupta, J.
This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed by one D.C. alias Deputy Ram, who has been summoned by the court to face trial under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the investigating agency had found the petitioner innocent during the investigation and thus, charge-sheet was submitted only against Lucky alias Amit Kumar. According to the counsel, no evidence is available against the petitioner and thus he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed with the petition.
It is evident that in the very first version, the complainant had ascribed clear cut role to the petitioner. The complainant had stated that on the fateful day when the complainant was accompanying his
CRM No. M-10489 of 2009 2
brother, they were accosted by D.C. alias Deputy Ram (the petitioner herein), and one Lucky alias Amit Kumar near the taxi stand. The petitioner told Lucky to run the canter over brother of the complainant. Lucky obeyed and drove the canter over brother of the complainant and crushed him under its tyres. It is thus obvious that the complainant, who is also an eye-witness to the crime named the petitioner in the initial version as well, which led to the registration of the FIR. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show how the police arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was innocent. He has only referred to the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-1), wherein it is mentioned that the Investigating Officer found D.C. alias Deputy Ram innocent in respect of the offence alleged. However, the said report does not contain any reason on the basis of which D.C. alias Deputy Ram i.e. the petitioner was found innocent.
The allegations against the petitioner being serious in nature and offence being under Section 302 IPC, I do not find it a fit case for grant of concession of anticipatory bail.
The petition is thus dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
April 20, 2009 'rajpal'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail being absolved in the final report by the Investigating Officer
Whether a case involving serious offence under Section 302 IPC can be treated as a fit case for anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
D.C. Alias Deputy Ram
State of Haryana
RAJAN GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
