Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 355 (PNJ)

Poonam Hejra Chela Shabnam v. State Of Haryana

2000-03-28

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. On the statement of Bhola Ram, F.I.R. No. 189 dated 27.9.1999 has been registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452 and 365 I.P.C. at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt, wherein the following allegations are found : 2. On 27.9.1999, complainant Bhola Ram, Reshma and others were singing and dancing in the courtyard of House No. 139, Vashisht Nagar for getting money. At that time 25/30 persons came there arming themselves with iron rod, dangs etc. and attacked. Reshma Hijra fell down unconscious after receiving injuries from the iron rod. There were three cars in which Reshma Hijra was taken forcibly. Among these persons the complainant could identify Poonam Hijra (first-petitioner herein). The petitioners application for bail in anticipation of arrest was dismissed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, and therefore, they have approached this court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the same relief. 3. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are eunuchs, who do singing and dancing and that they have the exclusive right to do so in Ambala City including the old village of Chabbiana, which now comprises Mahesh Nagar, Babyal, Dalipgarth etc. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Indira Hijra belonging to another group also started singing and dancing in these areas and, therefore, a civil suit has also been filed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ambala City, wherein temporary injunction has also been granted. The petitioners have produced Annexures P-2 and P-3 in support of their contention. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that there is rivalry between these groups to do the singing and dancing in certain areas. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this is a case of cross-versions, and that on the statement of Sabnam Hijra, F.I.R. No. 315 dated 27.9.1999 has also been registered at Police Station Ambala City under Sections 148, 149, 323, 356, 452 I.P.C. (Annexure P-4) against Reshma. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners in the F.I.R. that they had taken away any of the jewels and, therefore, it cannot be stated that their interrogation in custody is necessary for recovering these jewels. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners in the F.I.R. that they had taken away any of the jewels and, therefore, it cannot be stated that their interrogation in custody is necessary for recovering these jewels. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that all the others except the petitioners and Reshma of the other side are on bail. 5. But the learned counsel for the State on the other hand contends that statement of Reshma was recorded on 27.9.1999 wherein, she has stated that she was taken in Car No. HYN-x-4225 by the petitioners and others, and that they took jewels of Reshma forcibly at the house of Sabnam. He also contends that Reshma was also given beatings and the medico-legal report relating to her shows that she had sustained ten injuries. Learned counsel for the State contends that the FIR lodged at the instance of Sabnam (Annexure P-4) on investigation has been found to be false. 6. The learned counsel for the State conceded that the petitioners have joined investigation, but he stated that the jewels have not so far been recovered. But taking into consideration the fact that this is a case of cross-versions, and there being dispute between the parties, regarding their right to sing and dance in particular areas with regard to which a civil suit is also pending, and without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioners can be granted bail in anticipation of arrest. 7. Petition is allowed. 8. In the event of arrest of the petitioners on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in this petition, the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. However, they shall abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr. P.C.