Ankish v. State Of Haryana
!"
"
!
"# $
"# $"% & &'(&) *+,-.
()*
+
*,*-
! !
% /01 + *2( *- &* *,*(
*3
&,45&6 &&3 &4, &4& 5-6
-3&5-6
+ *,*-
/ ! "
+ $
* %
/01
8 "Statement of Rohan Rajbhar son of Jagan Rajbhar resident of House no. 64 Sundar Vihar Colony District Yamuna Nagar aged 17 years mobile no. 7206975925. stated that I am resident of abovementioned address and am student of 12th class in S.D. Senior Secondary School Jagadhri. My date of birth is
22.12.2006. We are two brothers. My elder brother whose name is Rohit is working in a café and my name father is a mason and my mother is a Smt. Ranjana Devi is household woman. I have friendship with Sagar son of Virender Kumar resident of House no. 64 near Kalyan Property Dealer, Agarsain Colony, Kansapur, P.S. Farakpur, mobile no. 8168536516 for the last 5/6 years and Dev Saxena is friend of my friend Sagar. My friend Sagar had told me several days back that Dev Saxena son of Tarun Saxena resident of Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Chowk Sasoli Majri P.S. Farakpur had sent an SMS to Arjun's aunt's daughter and due to this reason there was exchange of hot words between Arjun son of Kuldeep and Sunny son of Munshi Ram residents of Sasoli and their friend Dev Saxena. On 21.12.2024 also a dispute had arisen amongst them and yesterday on 22.12.
2024 it was my birthday and I and my friend Ravi resident of Bank Colony, Yash resident of Bank Colony, Sagar, Vishesh, Sumit, Amit alias Roshan and Abhay residents of Sundar Vihar, Rohit resident of Sasoli, all of them had gathered at around 6 pm at the house of Rakesh r/o Sundar Vihar for my birthday party. During the party, Sagar had received a phone call from Dev Saxena and thereafter Sagar and Sumit regarding the dispute of their friend Dev Saxena had come in front of the house of Sunny in the street for talking to Sunny, Arjun and his friends. After sometime, my friend Sumit called me on phone and asked me to take me from Sasoli. Thereafter I had brought my friend Sumit and Sagar on the motorcycle of my friend Ritesh.
After sometime Sagar and Sumit brought their friend Ravi and Vishesh and called some other friends also on phone whose names I do not know. All of them had gone to Sasoli for creating dispute with Sunny and his friends. Thereafter I and my friend Vishesh went to see them in front of the house of Sunny and after going ahead a little, we saw Dev Saxena, Sumit and Sagar as also Sunny and Arjun and his friends fighting amongst themselves. They were attacking each other with bricks and pebbles and were abusing and threatening each other to kill them. Seeing escalation of the fight I and my friend Vishesh tried to run away on our motorcycle, suddenly someone fired 2/3 times out of which one bullet hit my left thigh.
My friend Vishesh was bringing me back from there, in the way my father's friend Satya s/o Ramsevak r/o Sundar Vihar met me who took me to Civil Hospital Yamuna Nagar on motorcycle for treatment where my treatment is going on. Today, the doctor conducted the operation and took out the bullet. Arjun s/o Kuldeep Singh and Sunny so Munshi Ram r/o Sasoli and several other boys were present at the spot, it is possible that someone out of them had fired with the intention to kill. In this regard, investigation be conducted and legal action may kindly be taken. I have got recorded my statement in Civil Hospital which I have read and is correct. Sd/> Rohan. Police proceedings:> Yesterday n 22.12.2024 at around 11pm an information was received by myself S.
s/o Jagan r/o Sundar Vihar colony P.S. Farakpur was admitted in Civil Hospital Yamuna Nagar due to bullet injury. On this information I S.I/SHO along with P/SI Randeep Singh, HC Sandeep Kumar no. 16 HC Anil Kumar no. 84 on official vehicle no. HRO2GV2575 being driven by Mangat Rai reached Civil Hospital Yamuna Nagar from where the ruqa of Doctor and MR no. GOU/73/KH/MLR/24 dated 22.12.2024 of the injured were obtained and my application was submitted to the doctor for recording the statement of the injured Rohan. The doctor declared the injured Rohan unfit for making the statement and told me that the injured would be operated upon on 23.12.
2024 and thereafter taking along Satya s/o Ramsewak r/o Sundar Vihar reached Sasoli road at the place of occurrence and inspected the place of occurrence and search was made for physical evidence at the spot. Today on 23.12.2024 I SI/SHO along with P/SI Randeep Singh, HC Sandeep Kumar no. 16 HC Anil Kumar no. 84 on official vehicle no. HR02GV2575 being driven by Mangat Rai reached Civil Hospital Yamuna Nagar from where an application was given to the doctor for opinion regarding injured Rohan. The doctor declared Rohan fit for making the statement and statement of the injured Rohan was recorded which was read over to him who after considering the same to be correct appended his signatures in english which I verify. In the MLR of the injured Rohan dated 22.12.2024 a gunshot injury is shown on left side of thigh.
On the basis MR and the statement offences under section 109(1), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 351(3) BNS 25>54>59 Arms Act are made out and writing was being sent through HC Anil Kumar no.84 to the police station for lodging FIR and FIR no. be informed after registration and special reports of the case be sent to the higher officers. I SI/SHO along with officials go to the place of occurrence. Today Civil Hospital Yamunagar sd. Janakraj SI/SHO PS Farakpur dated 23.12.2024 time 03.30 pm."
- */.&/.(*/0 / 1&-2') *) .-& 3&.(.(*/&4
.
%
0
.
8
*3 &* *,*(
%
%8
9
% .
5 .
!
/ 1&-2') *) .-& .2.&67*83'2(/2/.
%
.%
$
.
%
%
:
/2'90(0 0
.
;
.%
<
$
< .% '
.%
%8
** &* *,*(
/ %
%
%
$=.
% . : .%
%
%
prima facie
<
.8 >It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge>sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.
Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside.
In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail.
The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
0
< .
()*
+
<
< <
!" #$$
#
%
8
"We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also material which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre>arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual.
The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third>degree methods needs not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."
.
.
:
%
. 0 %
%
0 %
%
$
.
%
$ "%
Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No