Order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram in anticipatory bail case is against settled norms: High Court

feature-top

Read Order: Sumit Tanwar vs State of Haryana

Vivek Gupta

Chandigarh, July 9, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram in an anticipatory bail case is against the settled norms.

“Director, Chandigarh Judicial Academy, Chandigarh is directed to look into the matter and issue appropriate directions to the judicial officers about the manner by which, while passing an order on bail application, the facts in the FIR need to be reflected before forming an opinion whether bail/anticipatory bail is to be granted or declined,” observed Judge Arvind Singh Sangwan in his order on Thursday.

The order pertains to the petition filed by one Sumit Tanwar to seek anticipatory bail. He was booked on July 14 last year under Sections 395 (dacoity) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC  registered at the Sector-56 police station in Gurugram, Haryana.

The petitioner’s counsel, at the very outset, said the order dated June 1, 2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugarm reflected non-application of mind and lacked the art of writing an order.

On this, Judge Arvind Sangwan said that it is a well settled procedure of law that while passing an order or a judgment, a Judge is required to notice the facts of the FIR; the role of the person seeking bail/anticipatory bail; his antecedents and the gravity of offence committed and then form an opinion in the light of the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments regarding granting or dismissing the bail/anticipatory bail.

“The manner in which the order has been passed only reflects that the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram has noticed that since the offence is under Section 395 of the IPC, which is a serious offence, therefore, custodial interrogation is required. On the face of it, this order is passed against the settled norms,” the HC stated.

The brief facts of the case are that the FIR was registered at the instance of complainant Chandan Kumar, who is a pizza delivery boy at Tossin Pizza. On July 14 last year, he had gone to a house to deliver pizza where five boys were present.

He said that when he reached the house, they started abusing him by saying that he had come very late and they snatched the pizza from him as well as his motorcycle. Thereafter, the complainant went to the police.

When the police reached at the spot, four boys had already fled with the motorcycle, whereas the fifth boy namely Prince was arrested at the spot. During investigation, Prince gave a disclosure statement naming another person, Aakash, who was later arrested.

One of the co-accused Sonu applied for anticipatory bail before the High Court. On September 24 .2020, he was granted the concession of interim bail, which was later on confirmed on January 14, 2021 in the high court.

The co-accused — Sonu, Mohit and Aakash — who were arrested, have already been released on regular bail, the HC noted on Thursday.

In his judgement, Judge Sangwan stated that state counsel does not dispute the factual position that the allegations are regarding snatching of pizza and the motorcycle which were recovered from the co-accused who have already been arrested.

“Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so,” the HC directed.

“In the meantime, the Director, Chandigarh Judicial Academy, Chandigarh is directed to look into the matter and issue appropriate directions to the judicial officers about the manner by which, while passing an order on bail application, the facts in the FIR need to be reflected before forming an opinion whether bail/anticipatory bail is to be granted or declined,” the HC added.

Add a Comment