SADHVI DEVA THAKUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall disposed of three petitions i.e. CRM-M-16922- 2017, CRM-M-17964-2017 and CRM-M-20365-2017, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners under Sections 302, 307, 304-A, 285, 337, 153AA IPC and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, at Police Station City, Karnal, vide FIR No.1236 dated 15.11.2016. Initially FIR was registered on statement of one Virender Mehta. He stated that on 15.11.2016, he alongwith his wife namely, Varsha alias Sunita had gone to Savitri Longue to attend the marriage. During the function, Sadhvi Deva Thakur came there alongwith 5-6 companions armed with weapons. After the ceremony, the Sadhvi went to the dancing floor and asked the Disc Jockey to play a song of her choice. Thereafter, she alongwith her companions started dancing on the floor. They were requested not to carry weapons, as it may lead to some untoward incident. However, they did not pay any heed. Complainant then requested them to step down from the stage. At this, Sadhvi Deva Thakur took out a revolver from her purse and fired in the air. She also fired towards the complainant. She exhorted other companions to teach the complainant a lesson. At this stage, co-accused also started firing towards him. One such shot hit his wife Varsha, who fell down. Thereafter, Sadhvi and her companions fled from there in a Fortuner car bearing No.HR-54-D-0021. Complainant's wife was taken to hospital, where she succumbed to her injuries. Police, however, registered a case under sections 285, 337, 304-A, 153AA, 216 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act. At the stage of committal, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took note of all the allegations levelled by the complainant. After examining the provisions of Section 300 Cr.P.C., she found that if an accused has a knowledge that his act is likely to cause death in ordinary course of nature, provisions of Section 302 IPC would be attracted. Finding that the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, she committed the case to said court.

(2.) During the course of arguments, it was urged before the court that the incident was sporadic in nature, there was no premeditation, thus, offence under section 302 IPC has not been made out. Moreover, issue can be dealt with during the course of trial. I am not convinced with this plea. Complainant has given vivid description of the manner, in which the incident took place. The allegation is that due to resistance put up by the complainant at the time Sadhvi alongwith her followers came on the stage with weapons, she fired towards the complainant with her revolver and instigated other companions to do the same. Admittedly, complainant's wife died in the incident. In such circumstances, no ground for granting the concession anticipatory bail is made out. According to stand of the State, accused Shubham participated in firing. Accused Vikrant was also having a .12 bore gun. Thus, they came to attend the function well armed.

(3.) This court has to be conscious of the fact that prayer in the nature of anticipatory bail is a concession and not a right. Keeping in view gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, no case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Custodial interrogation of the accused may be necessary to take the investigation to its logical end. All the three petitions are hereby dismissed.