Dismissed

Shobha v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Oct 2012CRM-M/22298/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner sought pre-arrest bail for charges related to offenses under the Indian Penal Code for assaulting police and interfering with their operations during a rescue attempt. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana rejected the application, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail application was dismissed; the petition remains unchargeable or is to be dealt with according to law.

Shobha Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-22298 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-22298 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : October 3^rd , 2012

Shobha

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

.... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana, for the State.

¶14

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶15

Shobha, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 438 dated 6.7.2012 at Police Station City Bhiwani, District Bhiwani for an offence punishable under sections 148, 332, 353, 186, 307, 506 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is mother of Chaman. According to him, Chaman and Manoj were taken into custody by the police team headed by Bahadur Singh, Head Constable. He has submitted that her other sons were also said to have been involved in a case. He has submitted that the petitioner is quite innocent and she has been falsely involved in this case to put

¶17

Crl. Misc. No.M-22298 of 2012

¶18

¶19

pressure on the accused. According to him, no specific role has been attributed in the FIR to the petitioner with regard to the rescue of Chaman and Manoj. He has further submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and no recovery is to be effected from her.

¶20

Learned State counsel on the other hand, has opposed the bail application. According to him, there is specific role attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. He has further submitted that there is nothing on the record from which it can be gathered that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only for her being mother of one of the accused.

¶21

The police came to the village to round up accused of FIR No. 422 dated 1.7.2012 registered at Police Station City Bhiwani for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 506 read with section 149 IPC. When the police party headed by Bahadur Singh, Head Constable apprehended Chaman and Manoj from a place in front of a barber shop at Bawari Gate and they were made to sit in the police vehicle, Chaman raised an alarm and called his family members. Kuldeep, Kake, Ravi and Kalia alongwith the petitioner and others came there. They were having dandas and lathis in their hands. They forcibly rescued Chaman and Manoj from the police vehicle and they did not stop at that but they gave blows to the members of the police party.

¶22

It may be true that the role of the petitioner, Shobha is not specific in the FIR, but this is not a case where specific role of participants of the occurrence could be mentioned in the FIR. The police had apprehend two persons wanted in a case and the petitioners along with others came there armed with lathis and dandas to rescue those persons and caused injuries to the members of the police party. This type

¶23

Crl. Misc. No.M-22298 of 2012

¶24

¶25

of behaviour on the part of petitioner and others cannot be taken lightly. The petitioner and others have interfered in the working of the police and the matter is, therefore, quite serious. In these circumstances, I do not find the petitioner to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.

¶26

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶27

October 3^rd , 2012 som

Shobha v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobha v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nishan Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ranjit Singh &Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kishan Lal @ Krishan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jasbir Singh Vs Darshan Singh

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana

Kultar Singh Vs State of Punjab