Allowed

Jai Prakash v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC5 May 2023CRM-M/16920/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, while disposing of an anticipatory bail petition, made the interim protection granted on 05.04.2023 absolute subject to stringent conditions, including disclosure of financial assets and a warning against repeat offenses.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail order dated 05.04.2023 made absolute subject to compliance with additional conditions regarding disclosure of financial assets.

Jai Prakash Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC: 064887

¶2

CRM-M-16920-2023

¶3

¶4

207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M-16920-2023

¶6

Date of decision: 05.05.2023

Jai Prakash

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

…Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶13

Present: Mr. Arjun Kundra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Manish Bansal, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶15

¶16

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶17

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
047/2023	08.02.2023	Sector -9A, Distt. Gurugram	381 IPC, 1860

¶18

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, had come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

¶19

Vide order dated 05.04.2023, the petitioner was granted interim protection, which is continuing till date.

¶20

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.

¶21

The State’s counsel opposes the continuation of interim bail.

¶22

4(a) Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection in case more stringent conditions may be imposed upon the petitioner and he would voluntarily comply the same but the bail may not be cancelled.

¶23

REASONING:

¶24

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 hampered the investigation, or despite being called to join the investigation, he did not appear before the investigator. Given

¶25

SONIA ARORA 2023.05.05 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

¶27

2023:PHHC: 064887

¶28

CRM-M-16920-2023

¶29

¶30

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.

¶31

By 31.05.2023, the petitioner shall forward to the Investigator/SHO and to the complainant/victim(s) in two notorised affidavits containing therein 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 petitioner fails to comply with these condition, then on this ground alone, it shall be permissible for the Investigator to take the petitioner in custody.

¶32

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 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 live a

¶33

normal lifebut did not mend his ways .

¶34

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.”

¶35

SONIA ARORA 2023.05.05 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

¶37

2023:PHHC: 064887

¶38

CRM-M-16920-2023

¶39

¶40

Petition allowed in aforesaid terms . Interim order dated 05.04.2023is made absolute subject to strict compliance of all terms and conditions. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

¶41

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶42

05.05.2023 sonia arora Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶43

SONIA ARORA 2023.05.05 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

Jai Prakash v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash 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

Ranjit and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Daddu @ Ahishek Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Vishal Vs State of Haryana

Payal Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Rupal Bhardwaj Vs State of Haryana and Others

Baljeet Singh @ Pappi Vs State of Punjab