Pre-Arrest Bail To Accused In Assault Of On-Duty Police Officials Sends Wrong Signal To Society, Demoralises Public Servants: P & H HC [Read Order]
"If the concession of pre-arrest bail is granted to the persons accused of assaulting public servants on duty, that may further embolden the people to take law in their own hands and indulge in further such acts, resultantly demoralising such public servants especially when they are from Law Enforcement Agency", the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed. Justice H. S. Madaan was...
"If the concession of pre-arrest bail is granted to the persons accused of assaulting public servants on duty, that may further embolden the people to take law in their own hands and indulge in further such acts, resultantly demoralising such public servants especially when they are from Law Enforcement Agency", the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed.
Justice H. S. Madaan was considering pleas for anticipatory bail in connection with a FIR under sections Section 353, 186, 188, 342, 323, 149 IPC and Section 51 of Disaster Management Act (Sections 188 IPC and Section 51 of
Disaster Management Act, added later on), for allegedly beating up two police officials who had intervened to break up a fight between some men and women on a road. Per the prosecution story, the accused assailants had not only physically assaulted the cops, they had also inflicted injuries on their own selves to implicate the officers in a false case.
The Single judge found no reason to disbelieve the prosecution story and rely upon the version set up by the petitioners at this stage, merely because one of the co-accused of the present petitioners, who is a female, was admitted in the hospital, prior in time to admission of the complainant-officer in the hospital. "The motive suggested that the complainant had caused injuries to the petitioners and their family members at the instance of one other, also does not come out to be very cogent and convincing", said the bench.
The bench noted that the merciless beatings given to a police official on duty, cannot be taken lightly, lest that should send a wrong signal in the society that one can indulge in such type of acts and get away with that.
"Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is found to be necessary to find out as to whether the incident was pre-planned or which happened at the spur of the moment, the role played by each one of the accused etc", observed the bench, adding that in case the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall adversely affect the investigation, which is uncalled for.
Accordingly, anticipatory bail was denied, noting that such relief is not to be granted in routine but only in cases where it is found that the criminal case has been registered as a tool of harassment and victimization of some persons for some extraneous reasons and not on factual position.
[Read Order]