High Court dismissed a petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. noting the petitioner as the main armed attacker causing grievous injuries whose custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation.
Petition for pre-arrest bail dismissed; petitioner not entitled to benefit of pre-arrest bail.
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.
Crl.Misc.No.M-25884 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-25884 of 2012(O&M) Date of decision : 27.8.2012
Mohinder Pal .......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present : Mr. B.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J
The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
seeking pre-arrest bail in the case arising out of FIR No.142 dated..22.7.2012 under Sections 323,324,34 IPC and Section 326 IPC added on 29.7.2012, registered at Police Station Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order dated 16.8.2012
passed by this court in Crl.Misc.No.24553 of 2012 (Narinder Pal Singh @ Lalli Vs.
State of Punjab), to contend that his co-accused has been granted pre-arrest bail by
this court. However, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the present
petitioner is the main accused, who has caused grievous injuries on the person of the
complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his custodial
Crl.Misc.No.M-25884 of 2012
2
interrogation is not required and he is ready to join the investigation. He submits that in view of the facts of the present case, the instant petition deserves to be accepted.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the record of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that present one is not a fit case for extending the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner for more than one reasons, being recorded herein after.
Firstly, admittedly, the petitioner is the main accused. He was armed
with sharp edged weapon-Gandasi. He gave blow on the neck of the injuredcomplainant. Secondly, there are two fractures caused on the person of the injuredcomplainant as per X-ray Report (Annexure P-4).
Thirdly, the investigation is still going on. Recovery of the weapon of offence is to be effected by the police. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be compulsive necessity of the investigating agency to carry out the effective investigation.
The view taken by this court also finds a support from the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State represented by the C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997(4) RCR (Crl.)268. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, which can be gainfully followed in the instant case read as follows :-
“4. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial
interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable
Crl.Misc.No.M-25884 of 2012
3
order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective
interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring would not conduct themselves as offenders.
Crl.Misc.No.M-25884 of 2012
4
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, since it was the
petitioner, who opened the attack on the complainant causing more than one grievous injuries, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of pre-arrest bail.
In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, the instant petition is without any
substance and is misconceived, hence it must fail.
Resultantly, the instant petition is ordered to be dismissed.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
27.8.2012 GS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. being the main accused who caused grievous injuries with a weapon.
Whether custodial interrogation is a necessity for effective investigation in cases involving grievous injuries.
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the main accused who initiated the attack causing more than one grievous injury.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State (CBI) v. Anil SharmaFollowed¶29
State represented by the C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997(4) RCR (Crl.)268
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohinder Pal
State of Punjab
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
