Case: Dr. Raj Saini Vs. State of Haryana &amp; Others

2. On 12.02.2016, Dr. Raj Saini, the appellant herein lodged an FIR, inter alia, alleging that she was in possession of half portion of a nursing home along with her son and that a civil litigation was going on in relation to the said property and that her husband, Dr. Parkash Saini and his family members intended to dispossess them forcibly and illegally. On 11.02.2016, at about 1.45 p.m, Dr. Parkash Saini along with his sister, Sheela Devi and certain other persons came at the property in her possession and asked her to vacate it, failing which they will kill her. Dr. Parkash Saini and his henchmen attacked them with iron rods, dandas, knives, pistols etc. and that on the call of the Dr. Parkash Saini, they broke open the door of a room with an intention to dispossess them forcibly and illegally. When they protested, they were assaulted. The matter was reported to the police and on hearing siren of the police vehicle, all the accused ran away. On the basis of the statement, an FIR was registered. The investigating officer took possession of the medical records from the hospital and also recorded the statement of the eye witnesses. Some incriminating articles were recovered from the spot.3. On 16.02.2016, Dr. Parkash Saini was arrested for commission of offence(s) punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 324 and 506 IPC and he was produced before the magistrate. The police prepared a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. andDr. Parkash Saini for commission of above offence(s) and he was released on regular bail. Later on, the matter was further investigated on the basis of CCTV footage recording, some more culprits were identified and the police introduced the offences under Sections 455 and 427 IPC and some other accused, including Rahul Kumar were arrested. Proceedings to arrest Dr. Parkash Saini for the added offences, under Sections 455 and 427 IPC, were also initiated.4. Apprehending arrest, Dr. Parkash Saini and his sister Sheela Devi sought anticipatory bail. Similarly, Rahul Kumar also sought anticipatory bail. According to them, the subsequent investigations are malicious and initiated merely with a motive to add the heinous crime, in collusion with the complainant. The applicant further alleged that as thehas already been filed, their interrogation was not required. The bail application was contested by the prosecution, inter alia, alleging that on account of subsequent investigation, the offences under Sections 455 and 427 IPC, were added as the earlier investigation was not carried out in a proper manner and the accused involved in the case were not apprehended. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Sessions Court dismissed the application of Dr. Parkash Saini and Rahul Kumar.5. Dr. Parkash Saini and Rahul Kumar filed applications under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court vide order dated 27.4.2017 has granted them anticipatory bail.

Reasoning:
8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel made at the Bar. The learned Sessions Judge has assigned cogent reasons for dismissal of the application of the private respondents seeking anticipatory bail. The CCTV footage of the incident was displayed in the open court in the presence of both the parties before the Sessions Judge. The session Judge has noticed the presence of Dr. Parkash Saini in the entire occurrence. Without considering the CCTV footage the earlier report was filed by the IO. In fact, Dr. Parkash Saini was leading the other accused. It is clear that he was directly involved in breaking open the door of the room and removing the articles lying there with the help of hisThough the name of Rahul Kumar was not mentioned in the FIR, later on the basis of CCTV footage he has been identified and his name has also come on record. The private respondents are the main accused in the case. It is also evident that they have damaged the property of the appellant with an intention to dispossess her and take forcible possession. The High Court without considering any of these aspects has granted anticipatory bail. The High Court has not considered the nature and gravity of the accusation and the role of the accused in the commission of the offence(s). We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in granting anticipatory bail.