CRM Nos.54927-28 of 2010 and ::1:: CRM No.M-29906 of 2010 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM Nos.54927-28 of 2010 and CRM No.M-29906 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.10.2010 Manoj .. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .. Respondent Present:- Mr.Manjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.C.Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. CRM No.54928 of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. CRM No.54927 of 2010 Medico-Legal Report dated 27.06.2010 (Annexure P-4), Out Patient Health Care Card (Annexure P-5), complaint dated 30.06.2010 (Annexure P-6) and Telegram dated 30.06.2010 (Annexure P-7) attached with the criminal miscellaneous application are taken on record subject to just exceptions. The criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. CRM No.M-29906 of 2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 28.06.2010 for the offences under Sections 332, 353,186, 395, 506 and 427 IPC at Police Station Kalka, District Panchkula. CRM Nos.54927-28 of 2010 and ::2:: CRM No.M-29906 of 2010 The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Ramesh Singh, Constable, who is posted at Police Station RPF, Kalka. It is alleged that on 27.06.2010, Beat No.1 & 2, and the Constable were on duty in the Police Station. The duty of the complainant- Ramesh Singh was from 4.00 p.m. to 12.00 a.m.. At about 11.00 p.m., some noise of a quarrel was heard from the Taxi Stand and IOW Gurpreet Singh came running towards the Police Station from the parking stand crying "Mar Dia, Mar Dia". He, however, did not come inside the Police Station and ran away through the path on the rear side. In the meantime, Tara Chand (father of the petitioner), President of the Taxi Stand and his son Vikram and Vinod (Manoj-petitioner) and Sammi, son of Vijay, whom the complainant already knew as they plied their taxis from the Taxi Stand, Kalka, alongwith 20-25 persons entered in the Police Station exhorting that the Police Station, RPF Kalka be robbed. The complainant tried to stop them but they did not stop. They beat the complainant and tore his uniform. Besides, they damaged the table, chairs and telephone box. They took the Daily Diary Register of the Police Station RPF, Control Room Register, Walky-Talky Register and Duty Register etc. Some persons were saying that the Police Station be set on fire and firearms be looted. Besides, railway official be killed and taught a lesson for hiding Gurpreet Singh. They also took the name-plate of the complainant. In the meantime, Jaspal Singh, Constable, RPF and Harbans Singh, Sub- Inspector came there, who witnessed the occurrence. All of them were saying that it was sufficient for today and they would teach them a lesson in future. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the false implication is evident from the fact that two FIRs in respect of the same occurrence have been registered; one is the present FIR in which the petitioner seeks his CRM Nos.54927-28 of 2010 and ::3:: CRM No.M-29906 of 2010 pre-arrest bail and the other is FIR No.8 dated 28.06.2010 (Annexure P-1) which is registered at Police Station Kalka, District GRP, Ambala Cantt., for the offences under Sections 332, 353, 186, 506 and 34 IPC. It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner namely Tara Chand had taken the contract of car parking at the Railway Station at the rate of Rs.3.05 lacs for a period of three months. The railway officials used to take monthly gratification from the Taxi Union's Operators, who had permitted them to park the vehicles at the Taxi Stand, Railway Station, Kalka. After Tara Chand had taken the contract, he stopped paying illegal gratification to the RPF Officials. Due to the said reason, the RPF Officials got angry and on 27.06.2010, the complainant alongwith other RPF Officials had beaten the petitioner and fractured his right elbow. The matter was reported to police but no action was taken. The petitioner filed a complaint against the RPF Officials and Railway officials which was sent for further investigation. The complaint was, however, converted into FIR No.120 dated 21.09.2010 (Annexure P-2) for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 307, 342, 506, 148, 149 and 34 IPC. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner is not Vinod and he is never known by the said name and his name, in fact, is Manoj. It is further submitted that the injuries on the person of the petitioner have not been noticed. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner created an unruly scene in the Police Station. He came to the Police Station and beat up the Constable and tore his uniform, damaged the furniture. Besides, he took away the telephone-box, Daily Diary Register of Police Station RPF, Control Room Register, Walky- Talky Register and Duty Register etc. of Police Station RPF, Kalka. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The case is one where the petitioner is alleged to have torn the CRM Nos.54927-28 of 2010 and ::4:: CRM No.M-29906 of 2010 uniform of the Constable; besides, committed vandalism in the Police Station. He is also alleged to have taken the Police records. The petitioner, however, has given a version that he was beaten up as his father, who had entered into the contract of Taxi Stand, Railway Station, Kalka, had stopped paying the illegal gratification, which enraged the officials of the RPF. These aspects would require consideration and investigation by the Police. On the complaint of the petitioner, FIR (Annexure P-2) has been registered. The role attributed to the petitioner in the present case is quite serious and the fact is that it has been alleged that he had torn the uniform of the Constable. Besides, he had created an unruly scene of vandalism in the Police Station and also taken away the records, would require the custodial interrogation of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for the grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) October 14, 2010 JUDGE sukhpreet