Ankit v. State of Haryana

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

02.01.2025 Mahesh

Nagar, Ambala

Cantt District Ambala 109(1), 115, 126, 190, 191(3), 305, 324(5), 333, 351(3) of BNS

¶1The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

¶2In paragraph 10 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allegations are being taken from translated version of FIR, which reads as follows: "To, In-charge Police Post Kardhan, Mahesh Nagar District Ambala. Sir it is Requested that I am Khushboo, daughter of Shri Ganesh Kumar, resident of house number 74, Pragati Vihar, near Shiv Mandir, BD floor, Bheel, Ambala, Cant. Today on 02/01/2025 at around 4:30 o'clock, I along with my sister Diksha were sleeping at home, and in the meanwhile, we heard the sound of pelting stones and bricks outside the home, and I came out from the room to see and found that several young boys were standing inside the gate of our house and all were harmed with knife, sword and axe. Out of these boys, one boy namely Kala son of Pritam, resident of Shalimar Bagh, Ambala Cant attacked me with intent to kill with the axe he was holding in his hand and to defend myself, I put forward my left hand and the axe hit on my hand. Had I not put my hand forward my hand, axe must have hit on my head and I might have died. I received a deep wound on my hand. All the boys vandalized at home and also broke the electric meter and also stole a gold ring and two gold bangle and also caused damage to activa bearing registration number HR01AH9034. We folded hands before Kala S/o Pritam and his friends not to fight and the give beatings. After giving beating to us Kala S/o Pritam, Sandeep S/o Manoj Kumar, Aman Chorha, Ankit, Chhota Sahil S/o Puran Chad, Sahil Mishra, S/o Aanand Mishra, Aman Kumar, Aadi Verma, Akshay @ Lakhu, son of Rajinder, Anish, son of Malaram and other boys issued threat to us and left the home and thereafter, they entered the house of Sanjeev son of Shri Kishan Lal resident of house No. 2, Simran Vihar and pelted stones and bricks at his home and also broke one new activa and bullet motorcycle bearing number HR85D3670 and thereafter Kala and his friends stopped, Mukesh Kumar son of Shri Ashok Kumar, resident of Lucky Vihar, Ambala Cant on his way. and give beatings to him and broke his activa number HR 80 5H3419. Appropriate strict action be taken against Kala, son of Pritam, resident of Shalimar Bagh, Ambala Cant, and his friends, Sandeep son of Manoj Kumar, Aman Chorha, Ankit, Chhota Sahil, son of Puran Chand, Sahil Mishra, son of Aanand Mishra, Aman Kumar, Aadhi Verma, Lakshay @ Lakhu son of Rajinder, Anish, son of Mala Ram and others for giving beatings to us by attacking at our home, for giving beatings to Mukesh Kumar and for vandalizing at the house of Sanjeev Kumar, resident of Simran vihar. My MLR is attached with the complaint. Dated 02/01/2025 Sd/o Khooshbu D/o Ganesh Kumar R/o Pragati Vihar, BD Floor Mill, Ambala Cantt Mobile No. 9729876087, 9053452615."

¶4The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶6Counsel for the petitioner has referred to para no.9 of the reply which reads as follows: "9. That as a matter of fact, the accused-petitioner alongwith other co-accused attacked the complainant. However, the accused-petitioner was not armed with any weapon at the time of occurrence. The complainant suffered 5 injuries on his person but he was not admitted in the hospital and now the victim is fit and fine. The accused-petitioner did not use any weapon, however, co-accused have used Iron Gandasi, Iron Sword and Iron Pipe at the time of causing injuries to complainant. The accused was arraigned as an accused as named in the FIR by the complainant/victim and on the basis of disclosure statement and the accused-petitioner has entered the house and beat them up and broke Activa and motorcycles and vandalized the house and has taken part in quarrel while other co-accused have caused injuries with their respective weapons upon the injured/victim."

¶7Given the stand of the State in para no.9 of the reply that petitioner was not armed with any weapon and no injury has been attributed to the petitioner, as such petitioner is entitled to bail. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration.

¶8Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage.

¶9The investigation indicates that the petitioner is not the main accused, so the petitioner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other co-accused with a higher role.

¶10Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶11Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶12While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶13The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading

this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶14Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the victim until the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. This Court is imposing this condition to rule out any attempt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the victim. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna Bhatt v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

¶15Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the victim, members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.

¶16The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed."

¶17In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶18It is clarified that if the petitioner violates any bail condition, the State and/or the victim may file an application for bail cancellation before the trial court, which shall be competent to cancel the bail or add more conditions. Furthermore, if the petitioner moves for deletion or dilution of any bail conditions, the trial court is empowered to do so.

¶19This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner

indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail.

¶20Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶21A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

¶22Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

14.05.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 07.05.2025 Pronounced on: 14.05.2025 Ankit ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Mohan Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, D.A.G., Haryana. ****