Inderjit Singh And Another v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 03.03.2023

Pronounced on:10.03.2023 Inderjit Singh and another ...Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Harsimar Singh Si$a, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Tejwinder Singh Hundal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** FIR No.

Dated Police Sta-on Sec-ons 04.02.2023 Sadar Khanna, 452, 323, 506, 148, 149, 427 IPC Police District (Sec9ons 458 IPC and 3 of Scheduled Khanna, District Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preven9on Ludhiana of Atroci9es) Act, 1989 added later on.

CIS No. 1286 dated 13.02.2023 Criminal Case no.

CNR No. PBLD01-003915-2023 before trial Court Date of Order: 20.02.2023 Aggrieved by the dismissal of his bail under sec9on 438 CrPC, the accused has come up before this court by filing an appeal under sec9on 14-A of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Preven9on of Atroci9es) Act, 1989, (SCSTPOA), seeking bail. 2.

The appellants had filed a bail applica9on before the Judge Special Court, Ludhiana, which was dismissed on 20.02.2023.

3.

In Prathvi Raj v. Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1036, a three-judge bench of Supreme Court read down S. 18 by declaring as follows, [10]. Concerning the applicability of provisions of sec9on 438 Cr.PC, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by sec9on 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply.

4.

In paragraph 10 of the bail pe99on, the accused declares that they has no criminal antecedents.

5.

The allega9ons are abusing the people belonging to the scheduled castes by using the derogatory words prohibited under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Preven9on of Atroci9es) Act, 1989 (SCSTPOA). 6.

The accused's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi9ons.The appellant's conten9on is that the custodial inves9ga9on would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarcera9on would cause an irreversible injus9ce to the appellant and family.

7.

State opposes the bail.

REASONING:

8.

On primafacie analysis of the nature of allega9ons and other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus9fiability for custodial or pre-trial incarcera9on at this stage. Furthermore, the appellants are first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraph 5 of the bail appeal needs considera9on for bail. 9.

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Cons9tu9onal Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumula9ve effect of the variety of circumstances jus9fying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are en9tled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecu9on has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its sa9sfac9on for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situa9ons. The rejec9on of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent applica9on.

The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situa9on. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court no9ceably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances sugges9ve of fleeing from jus9ce or thwar9ng the course of jus9ce or crea9ng other troubles in the shape of repea9ng offences or in9mida9ng witnesses and the like by the appellant who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the appellant to avoid the course of jus9ce and must weigh when considering the ques9on of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime.

the nega9ve criteria necessita9ng that course. In Prahlad Singh Bha9 v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considera9ons. In Dataram Singh v State of U$ar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is en9rely within the discre9on of the judge hearing the ma$er and though that discre9on is unfe$ered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, condi9ons for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory. 10.

The possibility of the accused influencing the inves9ga9on, tampering with evidence, in9mida9ng witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing jus9ce, can be taken care of by imposing elabora9ve and stringent condi9ons. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Cons9tu9onal Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restric9ve condi9ons.

11. Without commen9ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men9oned above, the appellant makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and condi9ons, which shall be over and above and irrespec9ve of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. 12.

In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53, [Law Finder Doc Id # 1933969], this Court observed, [53].

The pragma9c approach is that while gran9ng bail with sure9es, the "Court" and the "Arres9ng Officer" should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed deposit, or direct electronic money transfer where such facility is available, or crea9ng a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further op9on to switch between the modes. The op9on lies with the accused to choose between the sure9es and deposits and not with the Court or the arres9ng officer. 13.

Given above, provided the appellants are not required in any other case, the appellants shall be released on bail in the FIR cap9oned above, in the following terms: (a). appellants to furnish personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-); AND (b) To give one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the sa9sfac9on of the concerned inves9gator/SHO. Before accep9ng the surety, the concerned officer must sa9sfy that if the accused fail to appear in court, then such surety can produce such accused before the court.

OR (b) appellants to hand over to the concerned inves9gator/SHO a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automa9c renewal of the principal and the interest rever9ng to the linked account, made in favour of the 'Chief Judicial Magistrate' of the concerned district. The fixed deposit may be made from any of the

banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or any of the well-established and stable private sector banks. The fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the appellant's account.

(c). In case of the launching of the prosecu9on, the said fixed deposit be forwarded to the concerned court along with the police report/challan under 173 CrPC. (d). Such court shall have a lien over the deposit un9l the case's closure, or discharged by subs9tu9on, or up to the expiry of the period men9oned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the en9re amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor. (e). It shall be the discre9on of the appellants to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits. It shall also be open for the appellant to apply to the Inves9gator or the concerned court to subs9tute the fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa. (f).

On the reverse page of personal bond, the appellant shall men9on her/his permanent address along with the phone number, preferably that numbers which is linked with the AADHAR, and e-mail (if any). In case of any change in the above par9culars, the appellant shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modifica9on in9mate about the change to the concerned police sta9on and the concerned court.

(g). The appellants are to also execute a bond for a$endance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presenta9on of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declara9ons made in the bail pe99on and all other s9pula9ons, terms, and condi9ons of sec9on 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and also of this bail order.

14.

The appellants are directed to join the inves9ga9on within seven days and also as and when called by the Inves9gator. The appellants shall be in deemed custody for Sec9on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The appellants shall join the inves9ga9on as and when called by the Inves9ga9ng Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate with the inves9ga9on at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecu9on to seek cancella9on of the bail. Whenever the inves9ga9on occurs within the police premises, the appellant shall not be called before 8 AM, let off before 6 PM, and shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

15.

The appellants shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.

16.

Given the nature of the allega9ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the appellants shall surrender all weapons, firearms, ammuni9on, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fiYeen days from today and inform the Inves9gator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act,

1959, the appellant shall be en9tled to renew and take it back in case of acqui$al in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. 17.

Till the comple9on of the trial, the appellants shall not contact, call, text, message, remark, stare, stalk, make any gestures or express any unusual or inappropriate, verbal or otherwise objec9onable behavior towards the vic9m and vic9m's family, either physically, or through phone call or any other social media, through any other mode, nor shall unnecessarily roam around the vic9m's home. 18.

During the trial's pendency, if the appellants repeat or commit any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condi9on as s9pulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for cancella9on of this bail. It shall further be open for any inves9ga9ng agency to bring it to the no9ce of the Court seized of the subsequent applica9on that the accused was earlier cau9oned not to indulge in criminal ac9vi9es. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and aYer that in Sec9on 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not canceled due to non-appearance or breach of condi9ons.

19.

The condi9ons men9oned above imposed by this court are to endeavour that the accused does not repeat the offence and to ensure the safety of the witnesses, vic9m, and their families. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Pe99on (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 condi9ons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be propor9onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail condi9ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condi9ons that would result in the depriva9on of rights and liber9es must be eschewed." 20.

Any Advocate for the appellants and the Officer in whose presence the appellants puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all condi9ons of this bail order in any language that the appellants understand.

21.

If the appellants find bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be brought to the no9ce of this Court for appropriate reduc9on. Further, if the appellant finds bail condi9on(s) as viola9ng fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situa9on, then for modifica9on of such term(s), the appellants may file a reasoned applica9on before this Court, and aYer taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condi9on.

22. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the inves9ga9ng agency from further inves9ga9on as per law. 23.

In case the Inves9gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta9on arraigns another sec9on of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new sec9on prescribes maximum sentence which is not greater than the sec9ons men9oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec9on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec9ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec9ons men9oned above, then, in that case, the Inves9gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the appellant no9ce of a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

24. Any observa9on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 25.

In return for the protec9on from incarcera9on, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior. 26.

The SHO of the concerned police sta9on or the inves9ga9ng officer shall arrange to send a copy of this order, preferably a soY copy, to the complainant and the vic9m, without any delay. If the vic9m(s) no9ce any viola9on of this order, they may inform the SHO of the concerned police sta9on, the trial court, or even this court. 27.

There would be no need for a cerfied copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Appellant can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a est it to be a true copy. In case the a esng officer wants to verify the authencity, such an officer can also verify its authencity and may download and use the downloaded copy for a esng bonds.

Appeal allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applica9ons, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 10.03.2023 Jyo9-II Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.