The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied the bail to the accused who was arrested without furnishing written grounds citing prospective applicability of Supreme Court’s Verdict in Pankaj Bansal case.
The bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi has observed that the petitioner was arrested on 23.02.2022, much prior to 03.10.2023 i.e. the date on which the judgment in Pankaj Bansal was pronounced. Therefore, he cannot get any benefit of the law as laid down in the judgments.
The bench noted that the proposition of law is that the grounds of arrest must be supplied in writing to an accused but the law as laid down in Pankaj Bansal is to supply is prospectively after 03.10.2023 i.e. the date on which the judgment in Pankaj Bansal was pronounced.
The petitioner/accused has filed the bail application stating that During the course of investigation Anurag @ Arjun was arrested on 23.02.2022. He suffered his disclosure statement admitting to have committed the offence. As per his confessional statement, while he had fired at the deceased with his country-made pistol, the petitioner had inflicted Danda blows on the head of Sumit whereas Sandeep had inflicted leg and fist blows.
The petitioner and Sandeep were arrested on 24.02.2022. On their arrest, they too suffered their disclosure statements admitting to have committed the offence in question and stated that they could recover the motorcycle used in the occurrence. They also admitted to have caused injuries on the person of the deceased and stated that Anurag had fired the fatal shot.
The petitioner contended that no grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. As the petitioner was in custody since 23.02.2022 but only 02 of the 29 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, the Trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he was entitled to the concession of bail.
The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail and therefore, the present petition stands dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: Ravinder Versus State of Haryana
Case No.: CRM-M-62038-2024
Date: 14/02/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Abhijeet Choudhary
Counsel For Respondent: Dharam Pal
