Dismissed

Harbir v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jan 2017CRM-M/11603/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench dismissed an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner sought bail in a murder case where the deceased's body was recovered after an altercation. The court held that granting bail would hamper fair investigation in this blind murder case involving circumstantial evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioner not granted pre-arrest bail.

Harbir Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CRM-M-11603-2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-11603 of 2016 Date of Decision: 12.01.2017

Harbir

......Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana ....Respondent

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶10

Present: Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.

¶12

¶13

SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner in case FIR No. 340 dated 09.06.2015 registered for offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal.

¶15

Police of Police Station Hodal recovered a bead body of one Satish from the fields of village Sevali. Father of the deceased made statement to the police that on 06.11.2013 at about 08.30 p.m., Satish had gone on his motorcycle to irrigate fields. Dead body of Satish was found lying at a corner of the road near fields by his son Vijender. He also narrated to the police that his nephew Suresh informed him about a telephonic call made by the petitioner enquiring about whereabouts of Satish, who informed him that Satish was present at the shop of Sher Singh. Again the petitioner called Suresh on telephone and disclosed that the deceased had met him at about 09.00 a.m. and had altercation with someone.

¶16

Jitender Kumar 2017.01.18 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-11603-2016 -2-

¶18

When Suresh asked about location of the Satish, he disconnected the phone. On postmortem, cause of death of the deceased was recorded as shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained by him.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the police had already carried out two investigations wherein the petitioner has been found innocent. Now the police again want to arrest him after 18 months of recording of the FIR. His custodial interrogation is not required as he has already joined the investigation and is still ready to join it. He has relied on enquiry report of SHO, Police Station Hodal (Annexure P-2) whereby he has found allegations levelled against the petitioner as false. Incharge, CIA Staff, Palwal vide report (Annexure P-3) had also recommended filing of the complaint in this case.

¶20

Learned State counsel has argued that the police on scanning of telephonic call details of the petitioner has found his location near the place of occurrence. Though, FIR was registered after 18 months of the occurrence but the DDR No. 19 was recorded immediately after the occurrence on 07.11.2013, wherein the petitioner has been specifically named. It is a case based on circumstantial evidence and without custodial interrogation of the petitioner, it will not be possible for the police to crack the case and complete the chain of link evidence. Grant of benefit of bail will seriously hamper the investigation and the police may not succeed in fairly investigating the case.

¶21

It is a case of blind murder. I agree with learned State counsel that police has to scan all the circumstances during course of investigation appearing for and against the petitioner. Grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner will certainly hamper the fair investigation. The police is not after

¶22

Jitender Kumar 2017.01.18 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-11603-2016

¶24

-3-

¶25

the petitioner and has not arrested him so far even after more than 3 years of the incident. Mobile location of the petitioner at the time of occurrence is one of the circumstance which goes against him.

¶26

Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances and the gravity of offence, I do not find it to be a fit case to exercise discretionary power of this Court to grant benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶27

Instant petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.

¶28

( SURINDER GUPTA ) January 12, 2017 JUDGE jk Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶29

Jitender Kumar 2017.01.18 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harbir v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbir 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

Gurbaksh Singh Tuggal Vs State of Punjab& Ors.

Hanif & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Shipra Sonkar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sarabjit Singh Sandhu Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Kuldeep Singh @ Tahal Singh &Ors Vs State of Punjab& Ors.

Shabbir Vs State of Haryana