Allowed

Vishal v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC4 May 2023CRM-M/10925/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner who was charged with attempted murder and assault. The court imposed strict conditions including surrendering weapons, a bond amount, and a prohibition on contacting or approaching the victim and witnesses within a 500-meter radius.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 or fixed deposit of Rs. 10,000 subject to stringent conditions including non-association with victim and surrender of weapons.

Vishal Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRM-M-10925-2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-10925-2023

¶4

Reserved on: 21.04.2023 Pronounced on: 04.05.2023

Vishal

...Pe��oner

Versus

State of Haryana

…Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶11

Present: Mr. B.S. Dhankhar, Advocate, for the pe��oner.

¶12

Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶15

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta0on	Sec0ons
481	25.09.2022	Civil Line, Sonipat,	307, 324, 34 IPC (Sec�on 326
		District Sonipat	IPC added later on).

¶16

The pe��oner, incarcera�ng upon his arrest in the FIR cap�oned above, came up before this Court under Sec�on 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail.

¶17

In paragraph 6 of the bail pe��on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶18

Pe��oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi�ons.The pe��oner contends that the pre-trial incarcera�on would cause an irreversible injus�ce to the pe��oner and family.

¶19

The State opposes bail.

¶20

REASONING:

¶21

The allega�ons are on night when complainant who is a chowkidar was performing his duty found boys consuming liquor on the main gate of temple. When complainant forbade them from consuming, the boys gave him bea�ngs and injuries. The present pe��oner gripped the complainant and Sweat inflicted blows with broken boBle.

¶22

JYOTI 2023.05.05 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶23

¶24

CRM-M-10925-2023

¶25

As per paragraph 5 of the bail pe��on, the pe��oner is in custody since 28.09.2022. Given the nature of allega�ons, and injuries inflicted by the pe��oner, viza-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus�fiability for further pre-trial incarcera�on at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and condi�ons men�oned in this order. Furthermore, the pe��oner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. It is clarified that the other co accused shall not be en�tled to claim bail on the grounds of parity.

¶26

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Cons�tu�onal Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumula�ve effect of the variety of circumstances jus�fying 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 en�tled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecu�on 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 sa�sfac�on for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situa�ons. The rejec�on of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent applica�on. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situa�on. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court no�ceably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances sugges�ve of fleeing from jus�ce or thwar�ng the course of jus�ce or crea�ng other troubles in the shape of repea�ng offences or in�mida�ng witnesses and the like by the pe��oner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the pe��oner to avoid the course of jus�ce and must weigh when considering the ques�on of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikan�Narasimhulu 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 nega�ve criteria necessita�ng that course. In Prahlad Singh Bha� 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 considera�ons. In Dataram Singh v State of UBar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is en�rely within the discre�on of the judge hearing the maBer and though that discre�on is unfeBered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, condi�ons for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.

¶27

JYOTI 2023.05.05 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶28

¶29

CRM-M-10925-2023

¶30

The possibility of the accused influencing the inves�ga�on, tampering with evidence, in�mida�ng witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing jus�ce, can be taken care of by imposing elabora�ve and stringent condi�ons. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Cons�tu�onal Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restric�ve condi�ons.

¶31

9. Without commen�ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men�oned above, the pe��oner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and condi�ons, which shall be over and above and irrespec�ve of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

¶32

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,

¶33

[53]. The pragma�c approach is that while gran�ng bail with sure�es, the “Court” and the “Arres�ng 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 crea�ng a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further op�on to switch between the modes. The op�on lies with the accused to choose between the sure�es and deposits and not with the Court or the arres�ng officer.

¶34

Given above, provided the pe��oner is not required in any other case, the pe��oner shall be released on bail in the FIR cap�oned above, in the following terms :

¶35

(a). Pe��oner to furnish personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-); AND

¶36

(b) To give one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the sa�sfac�on of the concerned court, and in case of non-availability, any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep�ng the surety, the concerned court must sa�sfy that if the accused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the court.

¶37

¶38

(b) Pe��oner to hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automa�c renewal of the principal and the interest rever�ng 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 pe��oner's account.

¶39

(c). Such court shall have a lien over the deposit un�l the case's closure or discharged by subs�tu�on, or up to the expiry of the period men�oned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the en�re amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor.

¶40

(d). It shall be the total discre�on of the pe��oner to choose between surety bond and fixed deposit. It shall also be open for the pe��oner to apply to the Inves�gator or the concerned court to subs�tute the fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa.

¶41

JYOTI 2023.05.05 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶42

¶43

CRM-M-10925-2023

¶44

(e). On the reverse page of personal bond, the pe��oner shall men�on 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 par�culars, the pe��oner shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modifica�on, in�mate about the change to the concerned police sta�on and the concerned court.

¶45

(f). The pe��oner is to also execute a bond for aBendance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presenta�on of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declara�ons made in the bail pe��on and all other s�pula�ons, terms, and condi�ons of sec�on 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and also of this bail order.

¶46

The pe��oner 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.

¶47

Given the nature of the allega�ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe��oner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, ammuni�on, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fiYeen days from release from prison and inform the Inves�gator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pe��oner shall be en�tled to renew and take it back in case of acquiBal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules.

¶48

Till the comple�on of the trial, the pe��oner shall not contact, call, text, message, remark, stare, stalk, make any gestures or express any unusual or inappropriate, verbal or otherwise objec�onable behavior towards the vic�m and vic�m's family, either physically, or through phone call or any other social media, through any other mode, nor shall unnecessarily roam around the vic�m's home.

¶49

Given the nature of the allega�ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe��oner shall not enter the property, workplace, and the residence of the vic�m and shall also not enter within a radius of five-hundred meters from the vic�m’s home �ll the recording of the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial. This Court is imposing this condi�on to rule out any aBempt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the vic�m. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Inves�ga�on, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna BhaB v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

¶50

During the trial's pendency, if the pe��oner repeats or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condi�on as s�pulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for

¶51

JYOTI 2023.05.05 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶52

¶53

CRM-M-10925-2023

¶54

cancella�on of this bail. It shall further be open for any inves�ga�ng agency to bring it to the no�ce of the Court seized of the subsequent applica�on that the accused was earlier cau�oned not to indulge in criminal ac�vi�es. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and aYer that in Sec�on 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not canceled due to non-appearance or breach of condi�ons.

¶55

The condi�ons men�oned above imposed by this court are to endeavour that the accused does not repeat the offence and to ensure the safety of the witnesses, vic�m, and their families. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Pe��on (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 condi�ons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be propor�onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail condi�ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condi�ons that would result in the depriva�on of rights and liber�es must be eschewed.”

¶56

Any Advocate for the pe��oner and the Officer in whose presence the pe��oner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all condi�ons of this bail order in any language that the pe��oner understands.

¶57

If the pe��oner finds bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be brought to the no�ce of this Court for appropriate reduc�on. Further, if the pe��oner finds bail condi�on(s) as viola�ng fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situa�on, then for modifica�on of such term(s), the pe��oner may file a reasoned applica�on before this Court, and aYer 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 condi�on.

¶58

This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the inves�ga�ng agency from further inves�ga�on as per law.

¶59

In case the Inves�gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta�on arraigns another sec�on of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new sec�on prescribes maximum sentence which is not greater than the sec�ons men�oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec�on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec�ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec�ons men�oned above, then, in that case, the Inves�gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe��oner no�ce of a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶60

JYOTI 2023.05.05 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶61

¶62

CRM-M-10925-2023

¶63

Any observa�on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶64

In return for the protec�on from incarcera�on, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.

¶65

The SHO of the concerned police sta�on or the inves�ga�ng officer shall arrange to send a copy of this order, preferably a soY copy, to the complainant and the vic�m, without any delay. If the vic�m(s) no�ce any viola�on of this order, they may inform the SHO of the concerned police sta�on, the trial court, or even this court.

¶66

There would be no need for a cer�fied copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe��oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a�est it to be a true copy. In case the a�es�ng officer wants to verify the authen�city, such an officer can also verify its authen�city and may download and use the downloaded copy for a�es�ng bonds.

¶67

Pe00on allowed in aforesaid terms . All pending applica�ons, if any, stand disposed.

¶68

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶69

04.05.2023 Jyo�-II

¶70

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶71

JYOTI 2023.05.05 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶72