TITLE: Ram Niwas v State of Haryana
Decided On-:27.6.2023
CRM-M-30951-2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr Vikram Agarwal
INTRODUCTION- The petition at hand was submitted in accordance with Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for the granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in cases filed in accordance with Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 419, 420, and 120-B of the Penal Code of 1860..
FACTS OF THE CASE- This present FIR was filed against six people, including the current petitioner, in response to a complaint made by a woman by the name of Sushila Devi. Sushila Devi claimed that she owned a 160 square yard plot in Model Town Extension, Hisar, with the identification number K-45, which had been given to her on November 11, 2006 by the Hisar Shanti Cooperative Building Society Ltd. On April 5,2022, when she attempted to build over the plot, it was alleged that some people showed up and identified themselves as the plot’s owners. After conducting some initial investigation, the police informed her that her plot had been sold twice when the matter was reported to them.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
Expert legal representation for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has been wrongfully implicated. He claimed that the petitioner had no responsibility because he had no interest in the society and that Naresh Kumar, his son, was the vice president of the organisation. According to the claim, co-accused Banshi Lal moved a petition before this Court asking for the grant of pre-arrest bail, and the same was approved. The petitioner would cooperate with the investigation, according to the petitioner’s attorney, so an incarcerated interrogation is not necessary.
However, knowledgeable counsel for the State of Haryana, who was present on advance notice, and Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, an attorney who appeared on behalf of the subsequent buyers of the plots, both argued that there was no basis for the granting of prearrest bail. It was argued that the current petitioner was in charge of the society and that he had, in fact, committed to returning the money to the subsequent buyers via an affidavit. Custodial interrogation, according to an expert attorney, would be crucial.
The court decided – It is claimed that the petitioner was in charge of the society and actively participated in the commission of the crimes. There is no evidence in the public domain that the petitioner had no involvement with the society or that his son was the vice president of the aforementioned society. This Court did not automatically grant anticipatory bail to the current petitioner just because Banshi Lal had received it. According to this Court’s carefully considered opinion, granting pre-arrest bail in such situations would prejudice the thorough, free, and fair investigation, which would result in a miscarriage of justice. In this case, the court is reminded of the considerations that should be made before granting anticipatory bail
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Steffi Desousa
