Allowed

Piyush Bhatia v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Aug 2023CRM-M/12127/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to a petitioner accused under various sections of IPC and the Arms Act. The court considered the petitioner's criminal history, the compromised nature of the case, and the risk of injury in custody. Bail was granted subject to conditions including a personal bond, a surety or fixed deposit, surrender of weapons, and specific identification details,

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond, providing surety or fixed deposit, surrendering weapons/documents, and executing an attendance bond with specific identification deta

Piyush Bhatia Vs State of Haryana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRM-M-12127-2023 (O&M)

¶3

2023:PHHC:099679

¶4

101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-31739 & 31741-2023 in/and CRM-M-12127-2023 Decided on: 03.08.2023

Piyush Bhatia

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. AG, Hayana. Mr. Yogesh Vashista, Advocate for the complainants/victims.

¶12

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶14

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
427	01.08.2022	Faridabad Kotwali,	147, 148, 307, 341 IPC and 25
		District Faridabad, Haryana	of Arms Act

¶15

CRM-31739-2023

¶16

Allowed, as prayed for. Documents at Annexure P-4, are taken on record.

¶17

CRM-31741-2023

¶18

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Main case is taken up on board today.

¶19

Main case

¶20

The petitioner, incarcerated upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail.

¶21

In paragraph 8 of the bail petition, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

¶22

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Date	Offences	Police Station
1	24	15.01.2022	323, 506 & 34 IPC	Faridabad Kotwali
				(Faridabad)

¶23

ANJU RANI 2023.08.04 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

¶25

¶26

CRM-M-12127-2023 (O&M)

¶27

2023:PHHC:099679

¶28

2	36	15.01.2022	25, 54, 59 of Arms Act	Faridabad (Faridabad)	Kotwali
3	77	14.02.2022	148, 149, 323, 457, 380, 448,120B IPC	Faridabad Faridabad	N.I.T.,
4	362	28.08.2022	323, 506, 427, 341, 34 IPC	Saran (Farida	bad)
5	415	28.07.2022	427, 452, 506, 34 IPC	Faridabad (Faridabad)	Kotwali

¶29

Petitioner’s counsel contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. He further submits that he has no objection whatsoever to any condition which this Court imposes.

¶30

While opposing bail, the State contends that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.

¶31

REASONING:

¶32

The accused claims that the matter has been compromised between him and all the victims. Counsel appearing for the victims also corroborates the above said fact and submits that they have no objection if this Court grants bail to the petitioner.

¶33

In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶34

[10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.

¶35

InParamjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022:PHHC:003983 [Para 8] , CRM-M 50243 of

¶36

2021, this court observed,

¶37

While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a

¶38

ANJU RANI 2023.08.04 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

¶40

¶41

CRM-M-12127-2023 (O&M)

¶42

2023:PHHC:099679

¶43

playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.

¶44

As per paragraph 13 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 03.09.2022. Given the nature of allegations, and injuries inflicted by the petitioner, viz-aviz pre-trial custody, coupled with the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties, 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.

¶45

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 require, 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 Gudikanti 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 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:INSC:107 [Para 7], (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.

¶46

ANJU RANI 2023.08.04 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

¶48

4 2023:PHHC:099679

¶49

CRM-M-12127-2023 (O&M)

¶50

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 v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92] , (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.

¶51

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.

¶52

In Madhu Tanwar and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21] , CRM-M-27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed,

¶53

[10] The exponential growth in technology and artificial intelligence has transformed identification techniques remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recognition are incredibly sophisticated and pervasive. Impersonation, as we know it traditionally, has virtually become impossible. Thus, the remedy lies that whenever a judge or an officer believes that the accused might be a flight risk or has a history of fleeing from justice, then in such cases, appropriate conditions can be inserted that all the expenditure that shall be incurred to trace them, shall be recovered from such person, and the State shall have a lien over their assets to make good the loss.

¶54

[21] In this era when the knowledge revolution has just begun, to keep pace with exponential and unimaginable changes the technology has brought to human lives, it is only fitting that the dependence of the accused on surety is minimized by giving alternative options. Furthermore, there should be no insistence to provide permanent addresses when people either do not have permanent abodes or intend to re-locate.

¶55

Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the

¶56

petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, in the following terms :

¶57

(a). Petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/); AND

¶58

(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, to any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned officer/court must satisfy that if the accused fails to

¶59

ANJU RANI 2023.08.04 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

¶61

¶62

CRM-M-12127-2023 (O&M)

¶63

2023:PHHC:099679

¶64

appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the court.

¶65

¶66

(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, or blocking the aforesaid amount in favour of the concerned ‘Chief Judicial Magistrate’. Said fixed deposit or blocking funds can be from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or from any of the well-established and stable private sector banks. In case the bankers are not willing to make a Fixed Deposit in such eventuality it shall be permissible for the petitioner to prepare an account payee demand draft favouring concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for a similar amount. (c). Such court shall have a lien over the funds 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.

¶67

(d). 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 of this bail order.

¶68

(e). While furnishing personal bond, the petitioners/applicants shall mention the following personal identification details:

¶69

AADHAR number 2. Passport number of an Indian citizen, (If available), when the attesting officer/court deems appropriate or considers the accused as a flight risk.

¶70

Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available)

¶71

Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this

¶72

ANJU RANI 2023.08.04 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶73

¶74

¶75

CRM-M-12127-2023 (O&M)

¶76

2023:PHHC:099679

¶77

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. If the petitioner fails 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 the State shall file the said application .

¶78

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 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.

¶79

In return for the protection from further incarceration at this stage, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior. It is clarified that in case the petitioner does 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

¶80

live a normal life but did not mend his ways .

¶81

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 , 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28] , Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A ThreeJudge 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.”

¶82

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.

¶83

ANJU RANI 2023.08.04 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶84

¶85

7 2023:PHHC:099679

¶86

CRM-M-12127-2023 (O&M)

¶87

If the petitioner finds the 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.

¶88

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.

¶89

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.

¶90

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

¶91

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.

¶92

Petition allowed in aforesaid terms . All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

¶93

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 03.08.2023 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶94

ANJU RANI 2023.08.04 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶95

Piyush Bhatia v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyush Bhatia v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahender Pal Vs State of Haryana

Sukhbir Singh Vs St of Hry

Ramesh Vs State of Hy.

Kuldip Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ramandeep Kaur and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Iqbal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others