Satnam Singh @ Satta v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRA-816-2023

Reserved on: 20.03.2023

Pronounced on: 24.03.2023 Satnam Singh @ Sa a ...Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Harsimar Singh Si a, DAG, Punjab.

**** FIR No.

Dated Police Sta0on Sec0ons 04.02.2023 Maloud Khanna, 323, 294, 341, 348, 355, 379-B, 506, 34 Ludhiana of IPC and Sec8on 3 (1) (X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preven8on of Atroci8es) Act, 1989 Criminal Case no.

CIS B.A. No. 3882 of 2023 before trial Court CNR No.PBLD01-004134-2023 Date of Order: 28.02.2023 1.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of his bail under sec8on 438 CrPC, the accused has come up before this court by filing an appeal under sec8on 14-A of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Preven8on of Atroci8es) Act, 1989, (SCSTPOA), seeking bail. 2.

The appellant had filed a bail applica8on before the Judge Special Court, Ludhiana, which was dismissed on 28.02.2023.

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 sec8on 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 sec8on 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply.

4.

In paragraph 19 of the appeal, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

5.

The allega8ons are abusing the people belonging to the scheduled castes by using the derogatory words prohibited under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Preven8on of Atroci8es) Act, 1989 (SCSTPOA). 6.

The accused's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi8ons. The appellant's conten8on is that the custodial inves8ga8on would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarcera8on would cause an irreversible injus8ce to the appellant and family.

7.

State opposes the bail.

REASONING:

8.

On prima facie analysis of the nature of allega8ons and other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus8fiability for custodial or pre-trial incarcera8on at this stage. Furthermore, the appellant a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a prima facie perusal of paragraph 3 of the bail appeal needs considera8on for bail. 9.

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Cons8tu8onal Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumula8ve effect of the variety of circumstances jus8fying 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 en8tled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecu8on 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 sa8sfac8on for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situa8ons. The rejec8on of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent applica8on.

The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situa8on. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court no8ceably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances sugges8ve of fleeing from jus8ce or thwar8ng the course of jus8ce or crea8ng other troubles in the shape of repea8ng offences or in8mida8ng 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 jus8ce and must weigh when considering the ques8on of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime.

the nega8ve criteria necessita8ng that course. In Prahlad Singh Bha8 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 considera8ons. 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 en8rely within the discre8on of the judge hearing the ma er and though that discre8on is unfe ered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, condi8ons 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 inves8ga8on, tampering with evidence, in8mida8ng witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing jus8ce, can be taken care of by imposing elabora8ve and stringent condi8ons. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Cons8tu8onal Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restric8ve condi8ons.

11. Without commen8ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men8oned above, the appellant makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and condi8ons, which shall be over and above and irrespec8ve 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 pragma8c approach is that while gran8ng bail with sure8es, the "Court" and the "Arres8ng 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 crea8ng a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further op8on to switch between the modes. The op8on lies with the accused to choose between the sure8es and deposits and not with the Court or the arres8ng officer. 13.

Given above, provided the appellant is not required in any other case, the appellant shall be released on bail in the FIR cap8oned above, in the following terms: (a). Appellant 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 sa8sfac8on of the concerned inves8gator/SHO. Before accep8ng the surety, the concerned officer must sa8sfy that if the accused fail to appear in court, then such surety can produce such accused before the court.

OR (b) Appellant to hand over to the concerned inves8gator/SHO a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automa8c renewal of the principal and the interest rever8ng 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 prosecu8on, 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 un8l the case's closure, or discharged by subs8tu8on, or up to the expiry of the period men8oned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the en8re amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor. (e). It shall be the discre8on of the appellant to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits. It shall also be open for the appellant to apply to the Inves8gator or the concerned court to subs8tute the fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa. (f).

On the reverse page of personal bond, the appellant shall men8on 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 par8culars, the appellant shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modifica8on in8mate about the change to the concerned police sta8on and the concerned court. (g). The appellant is to also execute a bond for a endance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presenta8on of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declara8ons made in the bail pe88on and all other s8pula8ons, terms, and condi8ons of sec8on 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and also of this bail order.

14.

The appellant is directed to join the inves8ga8on within seven days and also as and when called by the Inves8gator. The appellant shall be in deemed custody for Sec8on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The appellant shall join the inves8ga8on as and when called by the Inves8ga8ng Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate with the inves8ga8on at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecu8on to seek cancella8on of the bail. Whenever the inves8ga8on 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 appellant 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 allega8ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the appellant shall surrender all weapons, firearms, ammuni8on, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fiYeen days from today and inform the Inves8gator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the appellant shall be en8tled to renew and take it back in case of acqui al in this case,

provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. 17.

Till the comple8on of the trial, the appellant shall not contact, call, text, message, remark, stare, stalk, make any gestures or express any unusual or inappropriate, verbal or otherwise objec8onable behavior towards the vic8m and vic8m's family, either physically, or through phone call or any other social media, through any other mode, nor shall unnecessarily roam around the vic8m's home. 18.

During the trial's pendency, if the appellant repeats or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condi8on as s8pulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for cancella8on of this bail. It shall further be open for any inves8ga8ng agency to bring it to the no8ce of the Court seized of the subsequent applica8on that the accused was earlier cau8oned not to indulge in criminal ac8vi8es. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and aYer that in Sec8on 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not canceled due to non-appearance or breach of condi8ons. 19.

The condi8ons men8oned above imposed by this court are to endeavour that the accused does not repeat the offence and to ensure the safety of the witnesses, vic8m, and their families. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Pe88on (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 condi8ons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be propor8onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail condi8ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condi8ons that would result in the depriva8on of rights and liber8es must be eschewed." 20.

Any Advocate for the appellant and the Officer in whose presence the appellant puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all condi8ons of this bail order in any language that the appellant understands.

21.

If the appellant finds bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be brought to the no8ce of this Court for appropriate reduc8on. Further, if the appellant finds bail condi8on(s) as viola8ng fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situa8on, then for modifica8on of such term(s), the appellant may file a reasoned applica8on 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 condi8on.

22. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the inves8ga8ng agency from further inves8ga8on as per law.

23.

In case the Inves8gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta8on arraigns another sec8on of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new sec8on prescribes maximum sentence which is not greater than the sec8ons men8oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec8on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec8ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec8ons men8oned above, then, in that case, the Inves8gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the appellant no8ce of a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

24. Any observa8on 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 protec8on from incarcera8on, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior. 26.

The SHO of the concerned police sta8on or the inves8ga8ng officer shall arrange to send a copy of this order, preferably a soY copy, to the complainant and the vic8m, without any delay. If the vic8m(s) no8ce any viola8on of this order, they may inform the SHO of the concerned police sta8on, 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 applica8ons, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 24.03.2023 Jyo8-II Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.