Surender Singh v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH 217-1 CRM-M-38853-2023 Date of Decision: 05.09.2023 Surender Singh ...PeƟƟoner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
217-2 CRM-M-39049-2023 Dr. Jaiveer Yadav and others ...PeƟƟoners
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
217-3 CRM-M-39054-2023 Jagdish Singh ...PeƟƟoner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
217-4 CRM-M-39062-2023 Geeta Devi ...PeƟƟoner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
217-5 CRM-M-40356-2023 Neeraj Kumar ...PeƟƟoner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
217-6 CRM-M-40747-2023 Kuldhir Singh ...PeƟƟoner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
217-7 CRM-M-39441-2023 Meena Kumari ...PeƟƟoner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
217-8 CRM-M-40291-2023 Ashok Kumar and another ...PeƟƟoners
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CRM-M-39157-2023 Pawan Kumar ...PeƟƟoner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CRM-M-41414-2023 Rakesh Kumar ...PeƟƟoner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Advocate, for the peƟƟoner(s) in CRM-M-38853-2023, CRM-M-40747-2023, CRM-M-39441-2023 and CRM-M-39157-2023.
Mr. P.K. Chugh, Advocate, for the peƟƟoners in CRM-M-39049-2023 and CRM-M-40291-2023. Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate, for the peƟƟoner in CRM-M-39054-2023.
Mrs. Baljit Mann, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bisman Mann and Mr. Rishav Soni, Advocates, for the peƟƟoner in CRM-M-39062-2023.
Mr. Kamaldeep Sehra, Advocate, for the peƟƟoner in CRM-M-40356-2023.
Mr. S.N. Pillania, Advocate, for the peƟƟoner in CRM-M-41414-2023.
Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police StaƟon SecƟons 18.10.2005 State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar 13 of PrevenƟon of CorrupƟon Act, 1988 and SecƟons 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC 1.
The common quesƟons of law and fact involved in these peƟƟons, therefore, all the peƟƟons are taken together, for brevity, facts are being taken from CRM-M-388532023. 2.
The peƟƟoner(s) apprehending arrest in the FIR capƟoned above had come up before this Court under SecƟon 438 CrPC seeking anƟcipatory bail. 3.
The arrest of the peƟƟoner(s) was stayed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which is conƟnuing Ɵll date.
4.
Counsel for the peƟƟoners submits that interim be made absolute and they would have no objecƟon, if the trial is expedited and they undertake not to delay the trial under any pretext whatsoever. They further submit that they would have no objecƟon in case, this Court might impose any stringent condiƟons to the peƟƟoner(s), whatsoever.
5.
The state's counsel opposes the bail and states that considering the allegaƟons, the peƟƟoner's custodial interrogaƟon is necessary. REASONING:
6.
The prosecuƟon's case is that the complainant and others pointed out irregulariƟes and malpracƟces commiƩed by the members of Haryana Public Service Commission in the selecƟon process of Haryana Civil Services (ExecuƟve) 2004. The allegaƟons are that the selecƟon process of said examinaƟon was not fair or based on merit, rather the selecƟon was influenced by poliƟcal and extraneous consideraƟons. During the invesƟgaƟon some sketchy things were found in the answer sheets of the candidates such as over wriƟng, change in hand wriƟng, change in marks, which effect the selecƟon zone.
7.
The peƟƟoner(s) was granted interim protecƟon, and during the interregnum,
there is no allegaƟon that he had inƟmidated witnesses or that he had hampered the invesƟgaƟon. Given the above, there would be no jusƟficaƟon to disconƟnue the interim protecƟon, and the same is made absolute subject to the peƟƟoner(s) complying with the terms of the bail order and the following addiƟonal condiƟons. 8.
The peƟƟoner(s) is directed to join the invesƟgaƟon as and when called by the InvesƟgator. The peƟƟoner(s) shall be in deemed custody for SecƟon 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The peƟƟoner(s) shall join the invesƟgaƟon as and when called by the InvesƟgaƟng Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate with the invesƟgaƟon at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecuƟon to seek cancellaƟon of the bail. Whenever the invesƟgaƟon occurs within the police premises, the peƟƟoner(s) 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.
9.
The peƟƟoner(s) 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.
10.
PeƟƟoner(s) to comply with their undertaking made in the bail peƟƟon, made before this court through counsel as reflected at the beginning of this order or in earlier orders. If the peƟƟoner(s) fails to comply with any of such undertakings, then on this ground alone, the bail might be canceled, and the vicƟm/complainant may file any such applicaƟon for the cancellaƟon of bail, and the State shall file the said applicaƟon. 11.
During the trial's pendency, if the peƟƟoner repeats or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condiƟon as sƟpulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for cancellaƟon of this bail. It shall further be open for any invesƟgaƟng agency to bring it to the noƟce of the Court seized of the subsequent applicaƟon that the accused was earlier cauƟoned not to indulge in criminal acƟviƟes. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and aŌer that in SecƟon 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not canceled due to non-appearance or breach of condiƟons. 12.
In return for the protecƟon from incarceraƟon, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior. It is clarified that in case the peƟƟoner(s) does not mend his ways and repeats the offence or indulge in criminal
behaviour, then in all future maƩers, the concerned courts shall keep it as a factor that this court had afforded a final opportunity to the peƟƟoner(s) to reform and live a normal life but did not improve.
13.
The condiƟons menƟoned above imposed by this Court are to endeavour that the accused does not repeat the offence and to provide an opportunity to the vicƟm to consider legal remedies for recovery of the amount. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ PeƟƟon (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 condiƟons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proporƟonal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail condiƟons, must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condiƟons that would result in the deprivaƟon of rights and liberƟes must be eschewed." 14.
Any Advocate for the peƟƟoner(s) and the Officer in whose presence the peƟƟoner(s) puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all condiƟons of this bail order in any language that the peƟƟoner(s) understands. 15.
If the peƟƟoner(s) finds the bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be brought to the noƟce of this Court for appropriate reducƟon. Further, if the peƟƟoner(s) finds bail condiƟon(s) as violaƟng fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situaƟon, then for modificaƟon of such term(s), the peƟƟoner(s) may file a reasoned applicaƟon before this Court, and aŌer 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 condiƟon.
16. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the invesƟgaƟng agency from further invesƟgaƟon as per law. 17.
In case the InvesƟgator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police StaƟon arraigns another secƟon of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new secƟon prescribes maximum sentence which is not greater than the secƟons menƟoned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added secƟon(s). However, suppose the newly inserted secƟons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the secƟons menƟoned above, then, in that case, the InvesƟgator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the peƟƟoner(s) noƟce of a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.
18.
The trial is expedited and the peƟƟoner(s) is directed to comply with the undertaking given through their counsel. It is clarified that in case any of the peƟƟoner(s) tries to delay the maƩer, then on this ground alone, it shall be permissible for the State to file an applicaƟon for cancellaƟon of bail before the trial Court itself.
19. Any observaƟon made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 20.
There would be no need for a cerƟfied copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the PeƟƟoner(s) can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and aƩest it to be a true copy. In case the aƩesƟng officer wants to verify the authenƟcity, such an officer can also verify its authenƟcity and may download and use the downloaded copy for aƩesƟng bonds. PeƟƟons allowed and interim orders are made absolute. All pending applicaƟons, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 05.09.2023 JyoƟ-II Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.