'Require Active Deterrence': Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail To Man Booked For Stalking, Brandishing Gun At Girl

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a 34-year-old man accused of stalking and brandishing a gun at a girl, observing that the act "requires active deterrence."

Justice Sumeet Goel observed, "A man who is hounding a young female while brandishing a gun, poses a threat which can become a cause of disquiet and pernicious trauma for the victim as also her family. Such acts require active deterrence lest these may vitiate the social civic order and fabric of Society."

The relief of anticipatory bail must not unduly hamper the rights of the investigating agency to conduct free, fair and impartial investigation, added the Court.

The man has been booked under Sections 354-D, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Punjab's Moga District.

As per the FIR, the man stalked the alleged victim, and, also attempted to forcibly provide his contact information to the class 12th student at gun point.

The Court noted that the "said incident is also stated to be captured in the CCTV camera. The victim has also articulated her fear of an impending mishap occurring due to the presistent action(s) of the petitioner."

After hearing the submissions and considering the material on record, the judge opined, "The egregious nature and compelling gravity of offence, as also the role of an unrelenting menacing stalker attributed to the petitioner leads to an unequivocal conclusion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail."

Justice Goel highlighted that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests.

"The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society," said the judge.

The Court added further that, "It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. Any such affront to an individual also impacts the family and Society adversely."

Considering the nature of allegation, the Court held, "it may not be possible for the investigating agency to unravel the entire truth including identity of unknown accomplices as also to recover the gun alleged to have been used by the petitioner, in case petitioner is armed with a protective order."

 Title: XXX v. XXX

Appearance: Naresh Kumar Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner.