Allowed

Gurmukh Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Aug 2012CRM-M/17521/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed connected petitions for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving Sections 366, 376, and 120-B IPC. The Court observed that the prosecutrix was forced to lodge the FIR and that the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 5.6.2012 and 23.7.2012 stood made absolute. Both petitions for anticipatory bail were allowed.

Gurmukh Singh and Anr. Vs Stat… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-17521 of 2012 and Criminal Misc. No. M-21360 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-17521 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: 28.8.2012

¶5

Gurmukh Singh and another

¶6

.....Petitioner(s).

¶7

Versus.

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

.....Respondents.

¶10

2 Criminal Misc. No. M- 21360 of 2012 (O&M )

Reeta and another

......Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others.

¶15

....Respondents

¶16

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶17

Present : Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶18

Mr. Khisitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

¶19

¶20

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)

¶21

This order proposes to dispose of two connected petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre-arrest

¶22

bail in the case arising out of FIR No. 84 dated 2.2.2012, under

¶23

Criminal Misc. No. M-17521 of 2012 and 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-21360 of 2012

¶24

Sections 366, 376 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal.

¶25

Notice was issued and interim protection was granted to the petitioners, vide orders dated 5.6.2012 and 23.7.2012.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of the orders passed by this Court, petitioners have joined the investigation and they have cooperated with the investigating agency. He further submits that since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement by way of compromise, which has been recorded vide order dated 28.5.2012 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-7053 of 2012, both the petitions deserve to be accepted.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State submits that in compliance of the orders dated 5.6.2012 and 23.7.2012, petitioners have joined the investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. However, since the allegations against the petitioners are direct and serious, they do not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that these are the cases wherein petitioners deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. I say so because of more than one reasons, being recorded hereinafter

¶29

Firstly, the order dated 28.5.2012 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-7053 of 2012 shows that prosecutrix appeared before this Court and made a specific statement that she was forced

¶30

Criminal Misc. No. M-17521 of 2012 and Criminal Misc. No. M-21360 of 2012

¶31

¶32

by her father to lodge the impugned FIR. The order dated 28.5.2012 passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-7053 of 2011, reads as under:-

¶33

“Respondent No.2 is present in the Court today and stated in the presence of her counsel and learned counsel for the father of respondent No.2 that she was forced to register the said FIR by her father Harbhajan Singh. Accordingly, she has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.”

¶34

Secondly, in compliance of the above said orders, the petitioners have joined the investigation and they have cooperated with the investigating agency. It is the case where the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required.

¶35

The view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharashtra and others, 2011 (1) RCR (criminal) 126.

¶36

Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. Thereafter, the petitioners have joined the investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. Their custodial interrogation is not required. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners.

¶37

In view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, both these petitions deserve to be allowed.

¶38

Resultantly orders dated 5.6.2012 passed in Crl. Misc. No.

¶39

Criminal Misc. No. M-17521 of 2012 and Criminal Misc. No. M-21360 of 2012

¶40

¶41

M-17521 of 2012 and 23.7.2012 passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-21360 of

¶42

2012 are hereby made absolute.

¶43

Both the petitions stand allowed.

¶44