A petition was filed for anticipatory bail for the accused against whom FIR has been filed under sections of IPC including “353” (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty and the punishment for which is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.), “186” (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions and punishment for which is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.), “188” (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant and punishment for which is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both), “342” (Punishment for wrongful confinement- imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.), “323” (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt- imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.), “149” (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in the prosecution of common object) and section “51” (Punishment for obstruction- imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both) of Disaster Management Act.
It was a pre-arrest bail application. The bail application for two female accused was granted by Additional Session Judge at Fazilka, but for others accused the bail application got rejected.
Aggrieved by such order the accused approached this court seeking anticipatory bail. It was alleged that the said accused assailants have beaten up two police officials while they were stopping a fight between some men and women on a road.
The ld. Counsel for the complainant said that the accused had given merciless beatings to the cops on duty without any provocation or justifiable reason.
Opposing the contention of the complainant, ld. Counsel for the accused said that the “FIR lodged by the complainant on the basis of wrong facts. The accused are themselves victims and not aggressors.”
After hearing both of the contentions the court was of the view that “ This matter involving merciless beatings given to a police officer on duty cannot be taken lightly, lest that should send a wrong signal in the society that one can indulge in such type of acts and get away with that. If the concession of pre-arrest bail is granted to the person accused of assaulting public servants on duty, that may further embolden the people to take law in their own hands and indulge in further such acts, resultantly demoralizing such especially when they are from Law Enforcement Agency.”
The court dismissed the petition and said “Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is found to be necessary to find out as to whether the incident was pre-planned or which happened at the spur of the moment, the role played by each one of the accused, etc. In case the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is denied to the Investigating Agency that shall adversely affect the investigation, which is uncalled for.”
