Rahul v. State Of Haryana And Others
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.02.2025 Rahul ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present:
Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
*** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1.
The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (previously, Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C)) seeking quashing of the orders dated 05.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) and 14.11.2024(Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby respondent No.2 and 3 were granted anticipatory bail, respectively, in the case stemming from FIR No.311 dated 04.09.2024 registered under Sections 115, 126, 140(3) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sahinta, 2023 (BNS) at Police Station Urban Estate Rohtak.
2.
Briefly, the facts, as alleged, are that on 10.07.2024, the petitioner-complainant boarded his mother and son on a bus when respondents No.2 and 3 arrived at the spot. They halted the bus and beaten
-2up the mother of the petitioner. They also snatched Rs. 15,000/- cash and other articles from her. Thereafter, they kidnapped the son of the petitioner and fled away.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that learned Court below has fallen into grave error by granting the concession of anticipatory bail to respondents No.2 and 3 as specific allegations have been made against them. Respondent No.2 is married to the petitioner and has been living separately from him. She had left their 3-year-old son with the petitioner and his mother. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have not only snatched ₹15,000 from the mother of the petitioner but also kidnapped the child. The learned Court below has failed to consider the statement dated 09.09.2022 (Annexure P-4) made by respondent No.2 wherein she has handed over the custody of their son to the petitioner. The said statement has also been attested by SI Devi Rani, In-charge, Women Cell. 4.
Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and after perusing the record with his able assistance, it transpires that
-3-
!
"
#
$ #
# " %
# !
&
$ '( !
# )*
+ , - . $ '( !
!
"#""$# "
-
/ 0 # ) !
" #
-4- $
%
& ' #
( ' #
'
) '
* '
+ '
, '
-
1 !uriously, the petitioner has moved the present petition seeking quashing of orders granting bail to respondents No.2 and 3 under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 Cr.P.C.) while overlooking Section 483(3) BNSS (erstwhile 439(2) Cr.P.C.), the provision that specifically exists qua cancellation of bail. While it is true that the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to make the ends of justice meet, however, the same must be used with great care and caution. Moreover, an alternate remedy in terms of Section 483(3) BNSS (erstwhile Section 439(2)). As such, in the absence of any compelling circumstances, this Court does not find the reason to
-5invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 Cr.P.C.)either.
9.
Moreover, there is a justified case for grant of anticipatory bail to respondents No.2 and 3 and the trial Court has passed orders dated 05.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) as well as 14.11.2024 (Annexure P-3) on correct appreciation of the facts and the law. 23
# !
4
322356,7 8*9 2522356,7 8* 9
!
22 , #
orders dated 05.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) and 14.11.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak are upheld. 12.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) 17.02.2025 JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No