Read Order: Jyoti v. State of Haryana
Chandigarh, June 8, 2022: While dealing with an anticipatory bail plea wherein the accused-petitioners were implicated in the FIR and also played specific roles in causing injuries to the deceased and the injured witnesses, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that petitioners actively participated in the occurrence in question and same was also corroborated from the injuries found on the deceased as well as the two other injured witnesses.
The Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul was dealing with two miscellaneous petitions filed under Section 438 CrPC by petitioners Jyoti and Triveni, for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of an FIR registered under Sections 148/149/323/302/506 IPC (325/326 IPC were added later on) and Sections 24-25-59 of Arms Act, 1959.
In the instant case, as a result of a fight, one person by the name of Kehar Singh lost his life while two others i.e. Sahil and Manisha received injuries. The FIR implicated the petitioners with others and attributed specific roles to them. The petitioner in the first petition (Jyoti) was alleged to be armed with a danda with which she inflicted blows on the person of the deceased and the injured witnesses, while the other petitioner (Triveni) was wielding an axe at the time of the alleged occurrence.
The counsel for the petitioners contended that the false implication of the petitioners in the instant case was evident from the fact that during the investigation, both the petitioners were not even found to be present at the alleged place of occurrence as petitioners. Further, it was his case that Investigating Officer filed a report stating the above-stated fact of the petitioners’ absence in it; however, when the matter was again investigated by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), the very same investigating agency found the petitioners involved in the alleged crime.
It was also the Counsel’s case that both the petitioners were women and it could not be believed that they would have even participated in the alleged occurrence. He furthermore submitted that the complainant party intentionally tried to implicate the entire family of the accused including the petitioners who were ready to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency.
On the contrary, the State counsel drew the attention of the Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR while submitting that the FIR in question was lodged promptly and without any delay after the occurrence in question. It was the counsel’s case that the petitioners were named in the FIR as one of them (Jyoti) was alleged to be armed with a danda with which she inflicted blows on the person of the deceased and the injured witnesses, and the other one (Triveni) was wielding an axe at the time of the alleged occurrence.
The Counsel added that when SIT was constituted and a thorough investigation carried out, both the petitioners were found involved in the crime, based on the evidence collected as well as the statements of the witnesses and co-villagers. Lastly, it was submitted that in the wake of the specific and serious allegations levelled against the petitioners, their custodial interrogation would be warranted and hence, they be not extended the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.
After considering the case advanced by both sides, the Court was of the opinion that prima facie, it did appear that the petitioners actively participated in the occurrence in question which also found corroboration from the injuries found on the person of the deceased as well as the two other injured witnesses.
The Court was thus not inclined to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the wake of both of them being named in the FIR and attributed specific roles in the alleged crime.
Hence, the present petitions were dismissed.