Jasveer Singh @ Rinku v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-4142-2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4142-2021

Reserved on: 28.02.2023

Pronounced on: 11.04.2023 Jasvir Singh @ Rinku

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. I.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Virat Rana, AAG, Punjab Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 20.11.2020 Lambi, Distt. Sri, Muktsar Sahib 452, 323, 148, 149 IPC (sections 307 and 308 IPC added later on) 1.

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, had come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. 2.

Vide order dated 14.09.2021, the petitioner was granted interim protection, which is continuing till date.

2.(a) In paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner.

4.

The State's counsel opposes the bail and prayed that in case bail is granted, the same shall not be a ground of parity by accused Bagla @ Gurjeet Singh. REASONING:

5.

Thus, there would be no justification to keep this bail pending waiting for the proper investigation. The petitioner were granted interim protection, and during the SONIA ARORA 2023.04.15 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-4142-2021 interregnum, there is no allegation that he had intimidated the victim or victim's family or the witnesses or that he had hampered the investigation, or despite being called to join the investigation, he did not appear before the investigator. Given the above, there would be no justification to discontinue the interim protection, and the same is made absolute subject to the petitioner complying with the terms of the bail order. 6.

In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior. It is clarified that in case the petitioner do not mend his ways and repeats the offence or indulge in criminal behaviour, then in all future matters, the concerned courts shall keep it as a factor that this court had afforded a final opportunity to the petitioner to reform and live a normal lifebut did not mend his ways.

The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavour that the accused does not repeat the offence and to ensure the safety of the witnesses, victim, and their families. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions. In Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013)15 SCC 570, Para 11, Supreme Court holds that while exercising power Under Section 438 of the Code, the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. While exercising utmost restraint, the Court can impose conditions countenancing its object as permissible under the law to ensure an uninterrupted and unhampered investigation.In Mohammed Zubair v.

State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed."

8.

There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. Petition allowed in aforesaid terms. Interim order dated 14.09.2021 is made absolute subject to strict compliance of all terms and conditions. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 11.04.2023 sonia arora Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

SONIA ARORA 2023.04.15 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document