Inderjit Singh Alias Sandy v. State Of Punjab

2023:PHHC:054874 CRM-M-57725-2022(O&M) 101+214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-57725-2022(O&M) Date of decision: 19.04.2023 Inderjit Singh @ Sandy

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Virat Rana, AAG, Punjab **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 19.06.2022 Subhanpur, Distt.

Kapurthala 353, 186, 224, 332, 148, 149, 120-B IPC and 21(a)/22/61/85 of NDPS Act, CRM-16315-2023 Allowed as prayed for.

CRM-M-57725-2022 1.

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, had come up before this Court on the allegations of recovery of 171 gram intoxicant powder, under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2.

Vide order dated 12.12.2022, 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. He further states on instructions that the petitioner has voluntarily complied all the conditions of the bail order. He submits that recovery was from a parked car and the petitioner was not registered owner of the car. 4.

At this stage, counsel for the State does not point out any availability of the evidence or prima facie connecting the petitioner with the said car. REASONING:

5.

Thus, there would be no justification to keep this bail pending waiting for the proper investigation. The petitioner were granted interim protection, and during the SONIA ARORA 2023.05.03 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:054874 CRM-M-57725-2022(O&M) 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. 6.

In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior. It is clarified that in case the petitioner do not mend his ways and repeats the offence or indulge in criminal behaviour, then in all future matters, the concerned courts shall keep it as a factor that this court had afforded a final opportunity to the petitioner to reform and live a normal lifebut did not mend his ways.

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 12.12.2022 is made absolute subject to strict compliance of all above terms and conditions as well as conditions imposed vide order dated 12.12.2022, failing which, it shall be permissible for the State to seek cancellation of bail. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 19.04.2023 sonia arora Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

SONIA ARORA 2023.05.03 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document