Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case with Sections 406/498-A and added Section 307 IPC. Court rejected petition as enquiry procedures were compliant and offence gravity warranted denial of bail.
Application for grant of anticipatory bail 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.
CRM-M-11663-2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-11663-2017 Date of decision : 25.05.2017
Jasmandeep Singh
....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. R.K. Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Manpreet Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab
Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
RITU BAHRI , J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in a case arising out of F.I.R No. 14 dated 10.02.2016 under Sections 406/498-A IPC (now added Section 307 IPC), registered at Police Station Women Cell, Ludhiana.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was already released on regular bail vide order dated 11.08.2016 granted by the Court of learned JMIC Ludhiana and now respondent-police added Section 307 IPC in the 3rd inquiry by which the petitioner again filed application for grant of pre-arrest bail before learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.03.2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once in the two inquiries conducted by the respondent-police, petitioner was found innocent
GAURAV ARORA 2017.06.03 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRM-M-11663-2017
2
and no offence under Section 307 IPC was made out, subsequently on the third application filed by the complainant, Section 307 IPC should not have been added. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitoiner.
On notice, a reply has filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police, CAW&C-Cell, Ludhiana on behalf of respondent No. 1 stating therein that on an application filed by the complainant dated 23.02.2016 for addition of Section 307 IPC, a detail enquiry was conducted by DCP (Investigation), Ludhiana (Annexure R-1/T) wherein it was revealed that when the complainant fell ill, then under the garb of treatment, the petitioner had given injection to the complainant for HIV positive with an intention to kill the complainant. When the complainant got her HIV test conducted, then the same was HIV positive, which is a killing disease. Since, the petitioner committed henious crime, the offence under Section 307 IPC was added.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to order dated 12.01.2009 passed in CRM-M-18244-2008 titled as Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others to contend that there are instructions issued by Director General of Police, Punjab on 01.04.2008 to the effect that once enquiry has been held, no further enquiry ought to be held by the police except for the orders given by the Courts and Human Rights Commission or any other statutory body of the State or as envisaged in the instructions issued by the Direction General of Police which say that if inquiry is to be got conducted from officers of outside district/range, then the case be sent
GAURAV ARORA 2017.06.03 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRM-M-11663-2017
3
for further inquiry after approval of DGP and the Punjab Government.
In the present case, third enquiry was conducted by senior officer i.e DCP (Investigation, Ludhiana) and he was granted permission to do the enquiry by Commissioner of Police i.,e Statutory body of the State and thus the instructions issued by Director General of Police, Punjab on 01.04.2008 have been fully complied with.
In view of the above factual position, no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The petition stands dismissed.
| 25.05.20 | 17 | (RITU BAHRI) |
|---|---|---|
| G Arora | JUDGE | |
| Whether speaking/reasoned | Yes | |
| Whether reportable | No |
GAURAV ARORA 2017.06.03 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving Sections 406/498-A and 307 IPC where Section 307 was added after previous inquiries found him innocent.
Jasmandeep Singh
State of Punjab
RITU BAHRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
