The High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners, an advance on their petition. It held that since petitioners were already admitted to ad-interim bail and the case appeared to be a business dispute, custodial interrogation was not justified.
Anticipatory bail granted; order for ad-interim bail made absolute.
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.
Criminal Misc.No.M-34244 of 2013
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No.M-34244 of 2013 Date of Decision: 02nd December, 2013
Rakesh Kumar Goyal & Anr.
....Petitioners
Versus
Boota Singh & Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.Mandeep Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr.K.S.Pannu, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.2-State.
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.
Prayer in this petition for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners, namely, Rakesh Kumar Goyal and Lachman Dass Goyal who have been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 403, 405, 420, 421, 422, 506 read with Section 34, IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in a criminal complaint No.66 dated 30.11.2012 titled as “Boota Singh vs. Rakesh Kumar Goyal & Anr.” pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phul, for 23.10.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been summoned in a private complaint; that though prima facie ingredients for the offences for which the petitioners have been
Criminal Misc.No.M-34244 of 2013
{2}
summoned, are not attracted but they are not contesting the said proposition at this stage, however, from the reading of the complaint, the preliminary evidence led by the complainant and the summoning order, it transpires that as a retaliation to the bickering going on between the private parties, the complaint was filed by the complainant; and that in compliance of the order dated 06.11.2013 passed by this Court, the petitioners did appear before the learned summoning court at Phul and were admitted to ad-interim bail. He also contends that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not at all required in the present case. In support of his contention, he has produced the certified copy of the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phul, which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Darshan Singh, Police Station, Dayalpura, District Barnala, very fairly concedes that no complaint was ever lodged by the complainant Boota Singh with regard to the occurrence as narrated in the complaint presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate, Phul. He further concedes that in compliance with the order dated 06.11.2013 passed by this Court, the petitioners did appear before the learned court below and were admitted to bail.
Learned counsel for the complainant though opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners but could not justify his submissions as to why the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar & another vs. State of Maharasthra and others , 2012(4) RCR
Criminal Misc.No.M-34244 of 2013
{3}
2013(2)
(Criminal) 761 and Shakuntala Devi vs. Baljinder Singh,
RCR(Criminal) 882.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.
Prima facie, it appears to be a business dispute with regard to a petrol pump which was allegedly taken on rent by the petitioners from the complainant. In compliance of the order dated 06.11.2013 passed by this Court, the petitioners did appear before the learned court below and were admitted to ad-interim bail, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioners does not appear to be justified in the present case. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Darshan Singh, very fairly conceded that the petitioners did appear before the learned court below and were admitted to bail. The certified copy of the order produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner also supports the stand taken by him. I have gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the complainant and found that the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 06.11.2013 passed by this court whereby ad-interim bail was granted to the petitioners is made absolute.
The petitioners shall continue to appear before the learned Summoning Court/trial court on each and every date of hearing unless ordered otherwise.
December 02, 2013 Seema
(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners admitted to ad-interim bail without evidence of prejudicial impact on investigation.
Whether custodial interrogation of petitioners is required given the prima facie appearance of a business dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vilas Pandurang Pawar & another vs State of Maharasthra and othersReferred¶22
Vilas Pandurang Pawar & another vs State of Maharasthra and others, 2012(4) RCR 2013(2) (Criminal) 761
Shakuntala Devi vs Baljinder SinghReferred¶26
Shakuntala Devi vs Baljinder Singh, RCR(Criminal) 882
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rakesh Kumar Goyal & Anr.
Boota Singh & Anr.
Naresh Kumar Sanghi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
