Tilak Raj And ORS v. State Of Punjab
!
!
"!!
!
!
#
! !
"
$$$$ ! $ % %&'%( !)*+,-
'() *
+
, -
).)/ 0* ,
).)/1
, 2
, '% %/ .3 ).)' 4
%)50)1 %%(0%1 %%60)1 /6%0)1 )75 %7%0/1 %7.
0 %%( 0)1
1 * ,
).)/
!- 0&8& 1 09 8)1 :;
, %/'
%/ .3 ).)' 4
%%60)1 %)50)1 /6%0)1 %7%0/1 %7.
* ,
).)/
!-
:
-
! 09 8%1 ) +
:;
8
'At this time, a statement was received from unknown Seva Singh, son of Gurdev Singh, resident of village Ajnali, police station Gobindgarh, district Fatehgarh Sahib, aged 45 years, phone number 91157$50604, addressed to ASI Jagdeep Singh number 508/PHG, with PHG Harjinder Singh number 453. The statement's contents are as follows: "I, the resident of the aforementioned address, work as a laborer. My daughter Simran Kaur has married Vipin Kumar, son of Anil Chopra, resident of Ajnali, by her own free will through court marriage on 29.04.2024. We have no social interaction with Vipin Kumar and his family. The boy's family is always looking for excuses to quarrel with us. On 11.07.2024, around 09:00 PM, when I was returning home with my daughter Rajji after getting medicine from Dr.
Pappu in Ajnali, we reached near Anil Chopra's house, where Tilak Raj, son of Jagat Ram, Mani Chopra, son of Anil Chopra, Hani Chopra, son of Tilak Chopra, and Anil Chopra, son of Jagat Ram Chopra, were standing in the street. Tilak Raj started abusing me, and the aforementioned individuals started fighting with me and my daughter Rajji, and they also started using casteist remarks against us. My daughter and I returned home, but the aforementioned individuals chased us. When we reached home, there was an argument with the other party. They started speaking ill of my daughters. Tilak Raj grabbed me by my arms, Anil Chopra hit my left arm with a stick, and Hani Chopra hit my chest with a stone.
At the spot, my nephew Manpreet Singh, son of Colonel Singh, and Lovepreet Singh, son of Tara Singh arrived and tried to rescue me from the aforementioned individuals. The aforementioned individuals left me and started beating mynephew Manpreet Singh and dragged him inside. I raised an alarım, and my family members, my brother Colonel Singh. Jarnail Singh, my wife Manjeet Kaur, my daughters Sanjana, my niece Silky, my nephew Shetty, my nephew Sandeep, my sister$in$law Bholli, and my niece$in$law Manpreet Kaur came to the spot and tried to rescue my nephew Manpreet Singh. The aforementioned individuals, along with some unknown outsiders, started throwing bricks and stones at us.
. nephew Manpreet Singh, he could have been killed. Hani Chopra, son of Tilak Raj, hit my niece Silky on the face with a sharp object. People standing on the roof threw bricks, which hit all of us. At that time, my brother Avatar Singh arrived and rescued us. Avatar Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, son of Jeet Singh, and Sukhwinder Singh, son of Kartar Singh, residents of Ajnali, admitted us to the Civil Hospital Mandi Gobindgarh for treatment. The doctor provided initial aid and referred me, my nephew Manpreet Singh, my niece Silky, and my wife Manjeet Kaur to GMCH Sector 32 Chandigarh. The doctor at GMCH Sector 32 Chandigarh has now discharged me. Manpreet Singh, and Manjeet Kaur. During the fight, Ravi Chopra, Pradeep Chopra, sons of Jagat Ram, Pradeep Chopra's son, and Priya Chopra, residents of Ajnali, also beat us. Today, after being discharged from CIMCH Sector 32 Chandigarh, 1, along with my nephew Manpreet Singh and wife Manjeet Kaur, was coming back and met you near the bus stand Sarhind. I have given you my statement in writing, which you have heard. Signed/$ Seva Singh.'
/ )/-%/-')/0 / 1%,2&( )( -,% 3%-'-')/%40 < !#
! + #
8!
:;
, %/' %/ .3 ).)'
-
, '8 &
+
- "
- # -
-+ =
+ #
+
=-
;
!
+
!
+
+
+
, #
/ 1%,2&( )( -,% 4%03)/5%/-!-2-%67)83&2'/2/- <
&
-
#
2
+ # -
%%(0)1 *,
!
#
=
#!+
#+ ##! & -
>
+ #
/2&90'0 ; # # ! - - ?
!+
-
9 + =
"= =
9 & # "@!
#
#+ ! - >
- -
# -
-
prima facie
-
9 -#
!=8 AIt 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."
;
= 9 !
'/( & & #=
9 +
9 9
# !" #$$
#
%
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."
&' & ; prima facie !+
=
#+ ##!
= # -- + =
#
=
#!+
- - + >
-
# #
"= #
!
+ -
#
:! ;
Poonam Negi Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No