CRM-M-55257-2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-55257-2022
Reserved on: 05.12.2022
Pronounced on: 20.12.2022

Sunil ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present: Mr. R.S. Malik, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Bansal, D.A.G., Haryana.

****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

210 24.04.2022 City Jind, District 148, 149, 323, 365, 379-B,
Jind (Haryana) 114, 342, 506 IPC and 25/30
of Arms Act

1. The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, came up
before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)
seeking bail.

2. In paragraph 16 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal
antecedents.

3. Petitioner’s counsel has drawn attention of this court to the order dated
11.11.2022 passed in CRM-M-42396-2022 (Annexure P-2), vide which the co-accused
was granted bail by this court. Counsel for petitioner claims bail on the grounds of
parity and does not press on merits.

4. State does not dispute the fact that the allegations against the petitioner are
more severe than co accused who was granted bail.

REASONING:

5. The allegations against the petitioner are that he along with other co accused
kidnapped the petitioner and gave beatings to him. As per paragraph 13 of the petition
the petitioner is in custody since 25.06.2022. Perusal of the order dated 11.11.2022

1
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2022 19:17:02 :::
CRM-M-55257-2022

vide which co accused was granted bail covers petitioner’s case on the grounds of
parity for the reasons that they are identically placed. It is appropriate to reproduce
paragraph 6 of this order, which is as under:-

“6. As per paragraph 15 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody

since 24.04.2022. Given the nature of allegations, and injuries inflicted
by the petitioner, viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the other
factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further
pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms
and conditions mentioned in this order. Furthermore, the petitioner is a
first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an
opportunity to course-correct.”

6. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a
Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the
cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying 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 entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution 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 satisfaction for the need to release such
person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing
a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances
then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v
Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the
basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are
circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or
creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and
the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that
the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course
of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the
heinousness of the crime. In GudikantiNarasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC
240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release
unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh
Bhati 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 considerations. In
Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held
that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the
matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously,
compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought
not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail
illusory.

2
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2022 19:17:02 :::
CRM-M-55257-2022

7. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with

evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care
of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. 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.

8. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail,
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.

9. 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.

10. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, in the following terms:

(a). Petitioner 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 satisfaction of
the concerned court, and in case of non-availability, any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty
Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned court must satisfy that if the
accused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the
court.

OR

(b) Petitioner to hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten Thousand
only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automatic renewal of the principal and the
interest reverting to the linked account, made in favor of the ‘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 sector banks. The fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the
petitioner's account.

(c). 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,
and at that stage, 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.

(d). It shall be the total discretion of the petitioner to choose between surety bond and
fixed deposit. It shall also be open for the petitioner to apply to the Investigator or the
concerned court to substitute the fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa.

3
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2022 19:17:02 :::
CRM-M-55257-2022

(e). On the reverse page of personal bond, the petitioner shall mention her/his
permanent address along with the phone number, preferably that number which is
linked with the AADHAR, and e-mail (if any). In case of any change in the above
particulars, the petitioner shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such
modification, intimate about the change to the concerned police station and the
concerned court.

(f). The petitioner is to also execute a bond for attendance in the concerned court(s) as
and when asked to do so. The presentation of the personal bond shall be deemed
acceptance of the declarations made in the bail petition and all other stipulations,
terms, and conditions of section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and
also of this bail order.

11. The petitioner 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.

12. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this
case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, ammunition, if any, along
with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from
prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the
Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case
of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules.

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

14. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this
case, the petitioner shall not enter the property, workplace, and the residence of the
victim and shall also not enter within a radius of five-hundred meters from the victim’s
home till the recording of the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in
the trial. This Court is imposing this condition to rule out any attempt by the accused to
incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the victim. Reference be made to
Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna
Bhatt v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

15. During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats or commits any offence
where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condition as
stipulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for

4
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2022 19:17:02 :::
CRM-M-55257-2022

cancellation of this bail. It shall further be open for any investigating agency to bring it
to the notice of the Court seized of the subsequent application that the accused was
earlier cautioned not to indulge in criminal activities. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall
remain in force throughout the trial and after that in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not
canceled due to non-appearance or breach of conditions.

16. 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 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.”

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

18. If the petitioner finds bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be
brought to the notice of this Court for appropriate reduction. Further, if the petitioner
finds bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing
difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may
file a reasoned application before this Court, and after 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 condition.

19. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the
investigating agency from further investigation as per law.

20. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns

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

21. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the

5
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2022 19:17:02 :::
CRM-M-55257-2022

merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

22. In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the
accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.

23. The SHO of the concerned police station or the investigating officer shall arrange
to send a copy of this order, preferably a soft copy, to the complainant and the victim,
without any delay. If the victim(s) notice any violation of this order, they may inform the
SHO of the concerned police station, the trial court, or even this court.

24. 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
20.12.2022
Jyoti-II

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes

Whether reportable: No.

6
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2022 19:17:02 :::