Nirmal Singh Sran v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-45277-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-45277-2022 Decided on: 09.11.2022 Nirmal Singh Sran
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Harmanpreet Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Sitta, DAG, Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 03.10.2019 Mehal Kalan, Distt.
Barnala 420 & 34 IPC 1.
! "
2.
Vide order dated 29.10.2022, the petitioner was granted interim protection, which is continuing till date.
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 and family.
4.
On instructions from ASI Sukhwinder Singh, State's counsel submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and he is no more required for investigation. REASONING:
5.
Thus, there would be no justification to keep this bail pending waiting for the proper investigation. The petitioner was granted interim protection, and during the 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 and the following additional conditions.
ANJU RANI 2022.11.11 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-45277-2022 6.
Within fifteen days from today, the petitioners shall forward to the Investigator/SHO and the complainant/victim(s) the complete details of bank account numbers with addresses, fixed deposits, DEMAT account numbers, the current market value of jewelry, sovereign metals, all precious articles, held either individually or jointly, and cash-in-hand. If the petitioners fail to comply with this condition, then on this ground alone, the bail might be canceled, and the complainant may file any such application for the cancellation of bail, and State shall file the said application. 7.
"
" 8.
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."
Petition allowed in aforesaid terms. Interim order dated 29.10.2022 is made absolute subject to strict compliance of all terms and conditions. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 09.11.2022 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.
ANJU RANI 2022.11.11 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document