This judgment denies pre-arrest anticipatory bail to petitioners in a dacoity FIR. The Court held that their failure to join investigation and prior inconsistent statements regarding their involvement preclude the grant of bail.
No relief; the petition for pre-arrest bail was dismissed.
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- 3475 of 2013
----1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 3475 of 2013 Date of decision. 04.02.2013
Dhirender @ Dhiri and anr.
....... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana and anr.
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. Navneet Singh,Advocate for the petitioners.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Dhirender @ Dhiri and Surender, the petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 131 dated 24.04.2012 at Police Station Sohna, District Gurgaon, for an offence punishable under section 395 IPC, to which section 397 IPC was added later on.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are not named in the FIR. According to him, the
Crl. Misc. No. M- 3475 of 2013 ----2--
complainant has exonerated the petitioners as well as others in his statement recorded at the trial faced by three co-accused of the petitioners, who have been acquitted of the charge. According to him, the petitioners are not involved at all in the case and, therefore, they are entitled to pre-arrest bail.
It is a case where the petitioners absconded and three co-accused of the petitioners faced trial and were eventually acquitted of the charge. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are not involved in the occurrence. This submission on the part of learned counsel for the petitioners runs contrary to the submissions made on their behalf before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, which is evident from order dated 12.11.2012. It is clearly a submission on behalf of the petitioners made before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon that no incident of dacoity took place and rather a dispute arose between the complainant and the applicants on account of collision of a motorcycle of the applicants with the canter.
The FIR contained version clearly shows that the canter plied by Kaseera was got stopped by bringing a motorcycle in front of the vehicle. There are specific allegations that after that five young boys , who had put their motorcycle in the way of the canter had given beating to him and his driver and had robbed them of
Crl. Misc. No. M- 3475 of 2013
----3--
their money. The occurrence is of 11.30 PM or 12.00 O'clock in the night and the occurrence of the nature as argued by learned counsel for the petitioners before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon could not be expected at mid night. All these circumstances show involvement of the petitioners. The prayer before this court is for release of the petitioners on anticipatory bail. The petitioners have not even joined investigation so far and their custodial interrogation is required in this case. Hence, the petitioners could not be held entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
February 04, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners who absconded and have not joined investigation are entitled to anticipatory bail in a dacoity case.
Whether the court must consider the discrepancies in the petitioners' shifting defense to grant bail.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dhirender @ Dhiri and anr.
The State of Haryana and anr.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
