Prem Chand v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.05.2025 PREM CHAND ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr.Amit Khari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 22.04.2025 Ladwa, District 121(1)/132/221/226/351(2)/3(5) of Kurukshetra BNS, 2023 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 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.

Per paragraph 16 of the bail application, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.

FIR No.

Date Offenses Police Station 1.

31.10.2013 323/354/506/34 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Ladwa, District Kurukshetra The facts and allegations are being taken from the order dated 15.05.2025 passed in CRM-M-24862-2025, which reads as follows:

"xxx xxx you are informed that an application in the name of Kavya Resort for new connection was received vide File No. K23-425-96, dated 11/4/2025. Upon which on 16.04.2025, we went there for installation of meter, but Prem Chand and Anurag did not allow the meter to be installed. Regarding this, I had informed S.H.O. Police Station Ladwa vide letter No. SPL-1, dated 16.04.2025. Thereafer, a letter No.897 dated 18.04.2025 was written to S.H.O. Police Station Ladwa for police assistance with regard to the above connection. So, Today, on 22.04.2025, at around 4 P.M., I went to the police station Ladwa and

-2I along with S.H.O. Ladwa and other police personnel reached at the site of Kavya Resort for installing the meter, the meter was installed there in the presence of police personnel. The videography of which was made by the police staff. After that I went to Kavya Resort to get the connection in the outgoing cable, by then the police personnel had left from there. As soon as I was going out of Kavya Resort to sit in my car, then Prem Chand, his son Anurag and 3-4 others attacked upon me and abused me and beat me up. MLR of which is attached. They threatened to kill me.

I had a gold chain of 18-20 grams around my neck, which has also been snatched and when I went to the spot with the police personnel to install an electricity meter to give an electricity connection, then Prem Chand S/O Mela Ram, his son Anurag and others threatened us and for obstructing our work they all threatened us that if we install an electricity meter here and give a connection then they all will commit suicide in your names and after giving the electricity connection, Prem Chand, his son and others broke the electricity meter and damaged government property. It is requested to you to take legal action against all the above." Counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused Anurag who was granted bail vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed in CRM-M-24862-2025 (Annexure P-6) by this Court.

The 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. The State's counsel opposes bail on instructions. 4.

Since, petitioner role is identical that of Anurag, co-accused, this Court does not deem it necessary that written response/ status report is filed in this petition. 5.

It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the order dated 15.05.2025 passed in CRM-M-24862-2025, which read as follows: "6. The petitioner and other persons during the incident have destroyed the eletric meter No.SS17846241 and electric wire. The petitioner and other accused person have destroyed the above said property. The police recover the eletric meter, electric wire and prepare the recovery memo. The recovery memo attached as Annexure R-2.

7. The petitioner and other accused on dated 22.04.2025 to interfere the government employee to perform their duty. The petitioner obstructed government work and broke the electric meter and electricity wires installed on the electricity pole without the permission of Electricity Department. And in front of SHO Ladwa and other police officials, they complainant Ashok Kumar J.E. and other electricity department employees and police officials were misbehaved with and abused and threatened that they would commit suicide

-3and implicate all of you employees. The petitioner had hurt the government employee during the incident. The petitioner is specific role and his name is in FIR."

REASONING:

6.

Allegations against the petitioner are that he along with co-accused threatened the employee of Electricity Department, obstructed them in their work and also damaged public property. Recovery of damaged material has already been effected. No purpose would be served by sending the petitioner in judicial custody. 7.

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.

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, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. 9.

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. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. CONDITIONS:

10.

Given 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.

11.

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

1.

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

Mobile number (If available) 4.

E-Mail id (If available) 12.

This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms. 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,

-4pressurize, 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. 13.

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.

14.

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.

15.

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 have the liberty to cancel this bail. 16.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 17.

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.

18.

Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

27.05.2025 (ANOOP CHITKARA) renubala JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No