The High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail in an FIR alleging obstruction of police duties. The court held that the petitioner's failure to cooperate with the investigation and reveal co-accused partners negated any claim for bail.
Bail application dismissed; petitioner held liable for non-cooperation.
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-24950 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-24950 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.11.2009
Nishant Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J (oral).
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 353, 173, 186, 149 IPC at Police Station Kharar, District Mohali, vide FIR No.350 dated 31st August, 2009.
One Paramjit Singh filed complaint against the petitioner before the police at Moga. The SHO of Police Station City Moga deputed two police officials to serve a notice of the complaint upon the petitioner. They contacted the petitioner on his mobile phone. The petitioner asked the police officials to meet him on the road leading to Chandigarh. When the officials met him, the petitioner was in his vehicle alongwith 4-5 companions. When notice ( Parwana ) was handed over to the petitioner, he tore off the same and kept the pieces in his pocket. Head Constable Sukhpal Singh tried to make him
CRM No. M-24950 of 2009 2
understand the necessity to accept the notice but petitioner alongwith his companions pounced upon the police officials and threatened them. Resultantly, the instant FIR was registered against the petitioner.
On 18th September, 2009, when the case came up for hearing, the petitioner was granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail with a direction to join investigation. However, on the next date of hearing i.e. October 30, 2009, learned State counsel apprised the court that the petitioner had appeared before the investigating officer but had refused to disclose the names of the persons who were accompanying him on the date of occurrence. He had, thus, prayed for dismissal of the bail application in view of the non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner. However, this court granted another opportunity to the petitioner to join investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency.
Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had already joined investigation and thus, the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to him, be confirmed.
Learned counsel for the State has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He has submitted that despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner had failed to cooperate with the investigating agency. He refused to disclose the names of co-accused who were with him at the time of occurrence. According to the counsel, the petitioner's non-cooperative attitude is due to political clout in the area, his father being a leader of local political organization ( Shiv Sena).
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given
CRM No. M-24950 of 2009 3
careful thought to the facts of the case.
The allegation in the FIR is of obstructing the public servant from discharging his official duties, which is a serious offence. It is obvious that the petitioner was granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail, which was extended on October 30, 2009. The petitioner was given an opportunity to cooperate with the investigating agency. However, he failed to do so. It appears that the petitioner has scant respect for law. In my considered view, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. In fact, his custodial interrogation may be necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end.
I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
November 12, 2009 'rajpal'
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an applicant with a non-cooperative attitude towards the investigation is entitled to pre-arrest bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nishant Sharma
State of Punjab
RAJAN GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
