Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Madan vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056549
CRM-M No. 15294 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 15294 of 2024
Reserved on: 04.04.2024
Pronounced on: 24.04.2024
Anil Madan ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Rahul Rana, Advocate for
Mr. Vikas Kumar Gupta, Advocate
for the pe oner.
Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta on Sec ons
20 12.01.2024 Chandni Bagh 120-B, 166, 166-A, 202, 217,
District Panipat 218, 389, 506 IPC and 7, 8, 13
of PC Act, 1988
1. The pe oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap oned above, has come up before this Court under Sec on 438 CrPC.
2. Vide order dated 22.03.2024, this Court had granted interim an cipatory bail to the pe oner and the said order is con nuing ll date.
3. Prosecu on case is being extracted from reply dated 03.04.2024 filed by concerned DySP which reads as follows:-
(i) That on 06.01.2024, one Nafis S/o Ali Hasan, presented a wri en complaint in P.S. Chandni Bagh, Panipat, inter alia with allega&ons that his brother namely Nafis has been beaten up and killed by 7-8 boys including "Chautala" and "Kala" at Premi Dhabha, Sanoli Raod, Panipat on 17.12.2023. It was further alleged that due to pressure of Premi Dhabha owners he gave a wri en complaint before police that his brother has died due to some deadly disease but he get to know that doctor men&oned about the injuries in the PMR. On the basis of said complaint and nature of crime a formal FIR No. 07 dated 06.01.2024 was registered u/s 302 and 34 of IPC at 1 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 02:18:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056549 CRM-M No. 15294 of 2024 P.S Chandnibagh, District Panipat. True Copy of FIR No. 07 dated 06.01.2024 u/s 302, 34 of IPC registered at P.S Chandni Bagh, Panipat is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1.
(ii) That on 10.01.2024, Nafis S/o Ali Hasan, presented one another complaint bearing no. 46-Peshi dated 10.01.2024, before Superintendent of Police, District Panipat. The contents of the complaint are reproduced for the ready reference of the Hon'ble Court as under:
"I, Nafis S/o Ali Hasan, R/o Gulshan Nagar, Kairana, District Shamli, U ar Pradesh. I work as a labourer. My younger brother Arif, was married and had two children. He used to live with his family in Kairana, District Shamli. To support his family, Arif used to do the work of garbage picking in different areas of Panipat. On 17.12.2023, my brother Arif had come to Panipat in the morning to collect garbage. My brother did not return home in the evening. On 18.12.2023, I got a call from my uncle Adarish's son Ashu, who lives in a slum near Sanauli Road, Malik Petrol Pump, and he told me that Arif and Raju, R/o Slum Near Malik Petrol Pump, Sanauli Road, had a fight at the Premi Dhabha, and Arif was beaten to death by them. Therea@er, I went straight to P.S. Chandni Bagh, Panipat, with my family. I met a policeman in the police sta&on who told his name as ASI Sa&sh Kumar, and he told me that on 17.12.2023, the body of my brother Arif was found near Premi Dhaba, near ABC Hospital, Sanoli Road, and he died due to excessive drinking and cold. When I started wri&ng a complaint about my brother's murder, the policeman said that you should write that your brother was ill for a long &me. I refused to write this and took my family to the government hospital in Panipat. When I went to the hospital and saw my brother's body, I saw injury marks on many parts of his body. We met the media people there, and we told them the whole thing. A@er some &me, the police vehicle arrived and took me aside and said that either write down what we are saying or else, no ma er how many days pass, we will not get the dead body of my brother. That night, we went back to our home in Kairana. In the morning, I got a call from a person named Anil Madan from mobile number 70155-21470 who asked me to come to Malik Petrol Pump, Sanoli Road, Panipat, whatever was to happen has happened, and asked me to sit and compromise. I refused to accept the compromise. Due to pressure, I came to Malik Petrol Pump with my family members. Some people threatened us at the petrol pump 2 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 02:18:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056549 CRM-M No. 15294 of 2024 and made us sit in the panchayat. A@er some &me, SHO Karambir took me and my mother, Vasila, from the petrol pump to Chandni Bagh Panipat in his government vehicle. However, when I started filing my complaint at the police sta&on, no one wrote the complaint according to me. The police got appended my signatures on some papers. The police made my family members sit in the police sta&on and made us compromise with the other party. Therea@er, a@er the post-mortem of Arif, we took his dead body and brought it to our home in Kairana. When we le@ the Government Hospital, Panipat with Arif's body, Anil Madan said that he would give us Rs 3.50 lakh for not filing a complaint and that he had also given Rs. 4 lakh to the police. We buried the body in the graveyard in Kairana. When I called Anil Madan on his number regarding the Post-Mortem Report, he threatened me and asked me what will I do with the Post Mortem Report. A few days a@er my brother's murder, I got a call from a person who said that if he enters Panipat, he would shoot me. On 06.01.2024, I gathered my family members and filed a complaint in P.S. Chandni Bagh in the hope of jus&ce, on which a case of murder of my brother was registered and CIA police arrested accused persons involved in the murder of my brother Arif. The officials of P.S. Chandni Bagh, Panipat, namely ASI Sa&sh, SHO Karambir, who tried to suppress the case of the murder of my brother Arif. Legal ac&on should be taken against police officials of P.S. Chandnibagh, namely A.S.I. Sa&sh, and S.H.O. Karambir, who tried to suppress the murder case of my brother Arif, and against Anil Madan and others involved who threatened us by colluding with the police on the basis of money, and jus&ce should be provided to my family."
The said complaint was marked to Assistant Superintendent of Police, Samalkha, District Panipat for enquiry. The enquiry was conducted by Sh. Mayank Mishra, the then Assistant Superintendent of Police, Samalkha, Panipat. During enquiry, both par&es were called and enquired with regard to facts of the complaint. A@er comple&on of enquiry, a report bearing no. 40-SPL was sent to Superintendent of Police, Panipat with the opinion to register FIR under sec&ons 120-B, 166, 166-A, 202, 217, 218, 389, 506 of IPC and 7, 8, and 13 of the Preven&on of Corrup&on Act and to suspend police officials who are involved in this case with immediate effect as they can use their official posi&on to affect the inves&ga&on. The relevant por&on of the enquiry report is reproduced below for the ready reference of Hon'ble Court:-
33 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 02:18:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056549 CRM-M No. 15294 of 2024 "Sir, with regard to the above-men&oned subject, it was found during enquiry that on dated 17.12.2023, Aarif, S/o Ali Hasan, R/o Gulshan Nagar, Village Kairana, District Shamli, UP, was beaten to death by accused Raju Chautala, S/o Hari Om, R/o Vidhyanand Colony, Panipat, along with his friends Sukram Pal Kala, S/o Dalbir Singh, R/o Village Diwana, District Panipat, Harjinder Singh, S/o Jaswant Singh, R/o Deshraj Colony, District Panipat, and Baljit @ Bholu, S/o Sardar Avtar Singh, R/o Patel Nagar, Panipat.
Despite having informa&on about this heinous crime, ASI Sa&sh Kumar No. 903 and SHO Karambir No. 173 did not register the FIR for 21 days. During this &me, both the aforemen&oned police officials mislead their senior officials by not telling the truth. When the complainant party again presented a fresh complaint and their shown their inten&on to appear before higher officials, only then FIR No. 07 dated 06.01.2024, U/s 148, 149, 323, and 302 IPC was registered. The same is being inves&gated by CIA-1, and five persons have already been arrested. The inves&ga&on of the said case is s&ll in progress. Rajesh Malik, R/o Village Ugrakhedi, District Panipat, Anil Madan S/o Chand Prakash Madan, R/o House No. 2298, Sector 15, District Sonipat, Anup @ Bhanja, R/o Ugrakhedi, District Panipat, and Ishant @ Ishu, S/o Naresh Kumar, R/o New Ramesh Nagar, Tehsil Camp, Panipat, in collusion with accused persons and police officials, pressurized the complainant party. The accused persons have also produced evidence of collusion between the accused party and police officials, namely ASI Sa&sh Kumar and Karambir, the then Sta&on House Officer of P.S. Chandnibagh. The acts of both police officials fall within the purview of corrup&on and crime. The vic&m who came to the police for jus&ce has been denied the same. Other officials of the police sta&on are also under doubt, which can be clarified a@er a deep inves&ga&on a@er registra&on of FIR. Hence, the case should be registered and requires a deep inves&ga&on, as the vic&m has already been trauma&zed a lot. FIR under sec&ons 120-B, 166, 166- A, 202, 217, 218, 389, 506 of IPC and 7, 8, and 13 of the Preven&on of Corrup&on Act is recommended to be registered. The police officials who are involved in this case are recommended to be suspended with immediate effect as they can use their official posi&on to effect the inves&ga&on."
4. Pe oner seeks bail on the ground that the main allega ons are against two police officials who despite knowledge of the offence did not lodge FIR for 21 days on the allega ons of receiving an amount of Rs.4 lacs. Counsel for the pe oner argued 4 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 02:18:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056549 CRM-M No. 15294 of 2024 that without effec ng any recovery, the police has filed charge sheet which shows that the allega ons were false.
5. State counsel has countered these arguments and submiDed that inves ga on is not complete and simply because money could not be recovered, could not mean that prosecu on case was false.
6. An analysis of these arguments would point out that although there is evidence that FIR was delayed for 21 days but the pe oner was not working as a public servant and for the purpose of bail, this Court has to consider his involvement for non- registra on of FIR.
7. Counsel for the pe oner argued that the pe oner has been arraigned as an accused on the statement of father of accused No.2- Sukh Ram on the allega ons that he had taken Rs.3,80,000/- to manage the police and further that there were allega ons of call details between one Karambir and pe oner. Allega ons against the pe oner are that he had offered Rs.3,50,000/- to Nafis for not filing a complaint with the police. When said Nafis asked for post mortem report, pe oner threatened him. State counsel has referred to Annexure R-4 which is statement of Ishant recorded on 13.01.2024 under Sec on 164 CrPC in which he has men oned that to resolve the issue of murder, the pe oner and one Sanjay Malik were media ng and were demanding Rs.8 to 10 lacs. State counsel has also referred to another statement of one Dalbir recorded on 14.01.2024 under Sec on 164 CrPC in which he told about payment of Rs.3,80,000/- by him as well as by his nephew and payment has been made to pe oner in order to resolve their dispute. Dalbir Singh clarified in his statement that he arranged money which he had taken from commission agent.
8. An analysis of these arguments would lead to the following outcome. Pe oner was working as a scrap dealer. He was not a public servant and even if there is a delay in lodging of FIR for demand of money or fetching up the maDer, it is the police officials who are responsible. Regarding the pe oner ac ng as tout of public officials, it is for the DGP to take appropriate ac on and ensure that honest police officers are given sensi ve pos ngs and the officials with doubGul integrity must not be given sensi ve posts or posi on of public dealing. Needless to say that even if it is admiDed that the pe oner was working as tout of some police officials it would not be a ground to jus fy custodial interroga on or pre-trial incarcera on. In case the allega ons are proved during trial, it would lead to pe oner's convic on and consequent sentence. Although there is some evidence in the shape of statements under Sec on 164 CrPC, but this 5 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 02:18:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056549 CRM-M No. 15294 of 2024 evidence is not enough to decline bail to the pe oner but it can be considered for the purpose of charge or in trial where its apprecia on has different parameters. As such, for the purpose of bail based on the pe oner's role, quality of evidence collected so far, it is neither a case for custodial interroga on nor pre-trial incarcera on.
9. Given above, the pe on is allowed. Interim order dated 22.03.2024 is made absolute. All pending applica ons, if any also stands disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
24.04.2024
Jyo Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
6
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2024 02:18:19 :::