Vipul Soni v. State Of Ut, Chandigarh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:-05.05.2022 Vipul Soni

...Petitioner

Versus

State of UT, Chandigarh

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Naresh Dilawari, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Anil K. Lamdharia, APP, UT, Chandigarh.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 28.08.2021 Sector 34, 419/420/120-B IPC, Chandigarh 1.

Aggrieved of the condition of bail of furnishing bonds to the sum of Rs.2 lacs with two local sureties of the like amount, the accused has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for modification of bail order dated 21.04.2022 (Annnexure P-1).

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that condition of sureties to the tune of Rs.2 lacs is unreasonable and beyond the capacity of the petitioner to furnish and as such it amounts to denial of bail.

REASONING:

3.

In the present case, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years. Thus, directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, (Para 13), apply to this petition, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to arrest the accused automatically when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

In paragraph 6 of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had volunteer to provide two sureties from Kharar who had cars value of worth Rs.2 lacs but the court insisted local sureties from Chandigarh. He further submits that the

purpose of sureties is to secure the presence of the accused to face trial in case he defaults to do so. Given above the impugned order is modified to the following extent. 5.

Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the condition of personal and surety bonds are modified to the following amounts, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

6.

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 pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with sureties, the "Court" and the "Arresting 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 creating a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further option to switch between the modes. The option lies with the accused to choose between the sureties and deposits and not with the Court or the arresting officer. 7.

Given above, provided the accused is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR mentioned above, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-) and shall furnish one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), in terms of order dated 21.04.2022. Rest of the conditions of bail order dated 21.04.2022 will remain intact. 8.

In the alternative, the petitioner may furnish a personal bond of Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), and hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit(s) for Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), made in favour of Chief Judicial Magistrate of the concerned district. Said 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 banks, with the clause of automatic renewal of the principal and the interest reverting to the linked account.

9.

The fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the applicant's account. If such a fixed deposit is made in physical form, i.e., on paper, then the original receipt shall be handed over to the concerned court. If made online, its printout, countersigned by the accused, shall be given; and the depositor shall get the online liquidation disabled. The applicant shall inform the concerned branch of the bank at the earliest that it has been tendered as surety. Such information be sent either by e-mail or by post/courier about the fixed deposit, whether made on paper or in any other mode, along with its number and FIR number. After that, the applicant shall hand over such

proof and endorsement to the concerned police station. Such court shall have a lien over the deposit until the case's closure, or discharged by substitution, or up to the expiry of the period mentioned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, as the case may be. Subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the entire amount of fixed deposit, less taxes, if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor. 10.

It shall be the total discretion of the applicant to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits. It shall also be open for the applicant to apply to the investigator or the concerned court to substitute fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa. 11.

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. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 05.05.2022 Sonia arora Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.