Granting pre-arrest bail to petitioners accused of homicide in a private complaint; holding that a police report under Section 202(1) proviso (a) Cr.P.C. is inadmissible due to jurisdictional absence. Petition allowed.
Pre-arrest bail granted; interim order of 1.4.2009 made absolute; Section 202 report declared non-evidentiary.
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.
Cr.Misc. NO. m 9180 OF 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Cr.Misc. NO. m 9180 OF 2009 DATE OF DECISION 18.5.2009
Smt. Santosh and others
......PETITIONER
VERSUS
Krishna and another
......RESPONDENTS
PRESENT: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate Mr. R.S.Madan, Advocate for respondent No.1
M.M.S.BEDI,J.
The petitioners seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in a private complaint filed by respondent No.1 titled Krishna Saini vs Smt.Santosh and another . The petitioners have been summoned vide order dated 31.1.2009 (Annexure P-5) for facing trial for offence u/s 302/120-B/34 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after recording the preliminary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari had sent the matter for inquiry before issuance of the process. In the said inquiry, the petitioners were found innocent, as such the complaint was dismissed but in revision petition the said order was set aside.
Learned counsel for the complaint has put in appearance to contend that the petitioners are responsible for the homicide of Babu Lal, as such they have been rightly summoned. So far as the report of police on investigation is concerned, it has been contended that the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate being violative of Section 202(1) proviso (a) Cr.P.C. having been passed in the case, which is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, no reliance can be placed on order dated 21.4.2007
Cr.Misc. NO. m 9180 OF 2009
2
(Annexure P-2).
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material on the record, I am of the opinion that since the petitioners have been summoned in a private complaint of the year 2004 and the petitioners have not been able to tamper with the evidence, they can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail in a private complaint. Besides this the petitioners have already put in appearance before the summoning court pursuant to the interim order passed by this court on 1.4.2009.
Without expression of any opinion on merits of the case, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 1.4.2009 is hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioners will continue to appear before the summoning court as well as before the trial court and that they will not, in any manner, tamper with the evidence or hamper the further proceedings before the summoning court or the concerned court after commitment. In case of petitioners violating any of the above said conditions, the complainant will be at liberty to seek the cancellation of prearrest bail. This order will not prejudice the right of the complainant during trial. It is made clear that the report prepared u/s 202 (1) proviso (a) Cr.P.C. by the police, being without jurisdiction, will not be considered a piece of relevant evidence for any purpose during trial.
May 18 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to petitioners accused of homicide in a private complaint.
Whether the police report prepared under Section 202(1) proviso (a) Cr.P.C. is admissible in view of the court's lack of jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Santosh and others
Krishna
M.M.S. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
