Harjeet Singh Alias Harjeet Singh Dhillon v. State Of Haryana
!
"
!
" $ % &'()& $
&'( ) * (+(,
-./ *
(+ +( (+(& 2 345 4&' 4&0 ,+6 7+8
.% 4'8+ (7
4070 (6 (0
% !
(
-./ 3 "Statement of Manpreet Singh s/o Sh. Iqbal Singh s/o Didar Singh, r/o Kanganpur, Police Station Sadar Sirsa, aged 24 Years, Mobile No.97288&88471. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and doing job of MR in Kanvas Pharma. In October, 2023 I had purchased a car model i&10 Grand Hyundai, bearing No.HR51&
BJ&3617, which was purchased through Tarsem Singh son of Gurmej Singh resident of JE Colony, near Kisan Chowk, Sirsa. This car has been registered in the name of one Padam Singh Chauhan, resident of Faridabad. I had purchased this car for Rs.2 lakh and while taking delivery of the same I had handed over Rs. 1 lakh 80 thousand in cash to Tarsem Singh on the spot and remaining Rs.20 thousand were to begiven after transfer of car in my name. Tarsem Singh had promised that he will get the car transferred in my name in 15 days, but Tarsem Singh has not done that till now. When I asked Tarsem Singh to get the car transferred in my name once or twice, then he evaded me initially, thereafter he threatened to kill me. Today on 20.02.2024 at about 5 PM, I was called at Sethi Coffee house at Subhash Chowk for discussion about the car.
I alongwith my friend Amandeep Singh alias Laddi s/o Gurcharan Singh alias Janta r/o Jhandi Wali Gali, Khairpur, Sirsa and my brothers Kamaldeep Singh and Luvpreet Singh reached at Sethi Coffee House, Subhash Chowk, Sirsa at about 5.30 pm for discussion. At that time, there were many people drinking coffee at Sethi Coffee house. At about 6.00 pm two vehicles i.e. one XUV with number HR2474900 having white colour and one Polo Car having white colour with number HR51AR3180 came. From the Polo Car Tarsem Singh s/o Gurmej Singh, r/o JE Colony, Sirsa and Goldy s/o Kala Singh r/o Near Bedi Kiryana.
Store alongwith 2/3 more boys whose name and address were not known came out from the XUV, which was in front, father Gurmej Singh and his brother Virender alias Bitta, Pradeep Kaushik r/o Panjuana and 2/3 persons whose name and address were not known came out. Tarsem was carrying pistol in his hand and others were having swords in their hands. On coming out of the car, Gurmej told Tarsem that kill them by hitting them with bullet. Then Tarsem fired, which hit on the left hip of my friend Amandeep alias Laddi s/o Gurcharan Singh, who was standing ahead of me. Then Tarsem fired second time towards me, I ran and the said fire hit a boy in his hand who was drinking coffee behind me. The name of that boy is Rajpreet Singh s/o Harpal Singh, r/o Rania, which I came to know on reaching the Hospital.
ourselves by running from the spot and made noise and while running informed the police by making a call at 112 number. On gathering of people, all accused ran in their vehicles alongwith their weapons. Thereafter, police got admitted my friend Amandeep alias Laddi and Rajpreet in Civil Hospital, Sirsa. Where doctor referred them after giving first aid to both of them. Hence Tarsem Singh and Virender alias Bitta s/o Gurmej Singh, Gurmej Singh s/o Hari Singh residents of JE Colony, Sirsa, Goldy s/o Kala r/o Near Bedi Kiryana Store, Pradeep Kaushik r/o Panjuana and 5/6 other unknown persons in connivance with each other have fired towards my friend Amandeep alias Laddi and myself with an intention to kill and the fire towards me has hit one Rajpreet s/o Harpal r/o Rania. Strict action be taken against all the above mentioned accused. Sd/& Manpreet Singh"." , *+,)+,-*+ + .)/'01 *1 ,/) 2),-,-*+)&
.
$
"
9 .
:
:
$ :
*
+ .)/'01 *1 &)32*+4)+,5 ,',) ;
!
"
3
:
:
9
+'0(3-3 .
:
#
3 :
:
#
:
<
:
#
: :
:
;
. :
:
2
3
(+ +7 (+(&
2
2
.
:
:
:
:
.
:
:
$
2 "
: :
:
2 2 :
. :
3 :
1:
3
5 prima facie
:
2
:
3
"
<
: 9
2
$
:3 =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."
.
:
: 2 &'( )* :
2 2 2
!" #$$
#
,
3 "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°ree 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."
. :
$
: 2
$ &'(
) * (+(, 2
6
:
.
3
"
"
:
$
:
:
$
Sham Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No