While dealing with a petition seeking regular bail of the accused in FIR relating to physical abuse and abduction of complainant’s brother, who later committed suicide, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that the compromise cannot be taken as a ground at this stage for grant of bail.
A Single Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Rohit @ Mirchi.
This is a petition seeking regular bail in FIR dated 17.6.2021, registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 365, 379-A IPC and later on added Sections 341, 120-B, 379-B (Section 379-A IPC has been deleted) registered at Police Station Dujana, District Jhajjar.
In this matter, the FIR was registered on the statement of Damanjeet. It was alleged that on 17.6.2021, Tarun and Mohit along with 8-10 boys came in a Verna and Swift Dzire car. They beat Hunny (brother of the complainant) and took him in the Swift Dezire car. Petitioner-Rohit @ Mirchi was named by the victim in a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 11.3.2022, the petitioner was not named in the FIR. It is argued that the matter has been compromised between the parties and a petition for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise has been filed. The contention is that in the impugned order, prayer for bail was declined on the ground that the victim later committed suicide due to the beatings given in the incident, which is factually wrong.
He further submitted that on committing suicide by the victim, a separate FIR was registered in which the petitioner was not named.
Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. She submits that the Verna car used in the incident was recovered from the petitioner. It is argued that the allegations in the FIR are serious as it is a case of abduction and snatching. She submits that as per the case set up, the offences committed are heinous and the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. She further submitted that the petitioner was specifically named by the injured.
“The observations made hereinafter are only for the purpose of deciding the petition for regular bail and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner was not named in the FIR but the fact cannot be lost sight of that he was named by the victim in a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The evidentiary value of the statement would be subject-matter of trial. It would be a debatable issue as to whether the FIR involving offences of abduction and snatching can be quashed on the basis of compromise. Be that as it may, the compromise cannot be taken as a ground at this stage for grant of bail.
The fact that the petitioner was not named in the subsequent FIR registered on committing suicide by the victim would be of no avail for grant of bail in the case. The allegations in the FIR are serious, there are chances of the complainant party being influenced, especially when other co-accused are yet to be arrested and compromise relied upon is an indicator of the complainant being approached. No case is made out for grant of bail”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.