Sumit Sharma v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.05.2025 Sumit Sharma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Ms. Amarjot Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G, Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Section 14.11.2024 City Gurdaspur, Distt. Gurdaspur 315 IPC 1.
The 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.
2.
In paragraph 16 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3.
The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows:
"4. That it is humbly submitted that the brief facts of the present case are that an application was moved by the complainant namely Harbans Lal against 1) Bholi wife of Rajinder Kumar; 2) Mani son of Rajinder Kumar;
3) Rani @ Priya wife of Mani, wherein, it was mentioned that in-laws family and husband of his daughter Kiran namely Sumit Sharma (petitioner) harassed her unnecessarily and when his daughter was pregnant, all the above said accused and her husband Sumit Sharma (petitioner) had given some medicine to his daughter, due to which, her child died in the womb. The matter was handed over to SI Harmesh Kumar of Police Station City for inquiry. The matter was got inquired by the SI Harmesh Kumar and during inquiry, it was found that various applications were moved by the complainant on the same subject and these applications have so far been inquired into by various police
officers. However, a case should be registered and investigation is required to be conducted. Accordingly, the present FIR was registered against Sumit Sharma (petitioner) under Section 315 of the IPC and the investigation is underway. If during the investigation, evidence or role comes to light against any other persons, then, action will be taken in accordance with law."
4.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would have no objection in case any stringent conditions this Court might put upon the petitioner including he shall not enter the property of the complainant without her permission till the pendency of the present petition. He further contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family.
5.
The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. 6.
It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows:
"10. The evidence against the petitioner: It is humbly submitted that the statement of the victim and the complainant along with the medical report (MLR) corroborates the version of the complainant.
11. The role of the petitioner: It is submitted that the petitioner had intentionally administered some wrong medicine to the daughter of the complainant in order to prevent the child from being born alive and due this, the child died in the womb."
REASONING:
7.
Petitioner is husband of the victim and there is matrimonial discard between them. 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 pretrial incarceration. 8.
Given 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. Without 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. 9.
Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory 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. 10.
While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:
1.
AADHAR number 2.
Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.
3.
Mobile number (If available) 4.
E-Mail id (If available) 11.
This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms. 12.
The 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.
13.
Given 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 complainant 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. 14.
The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.
15.
In 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. 16.
This 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 be at liberty to cancel this bail. 17.
Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 18.
A 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. 19.
Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 12.05.2025 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.