Allowed

Anil Vij v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Dec 2023CRM-M/58515/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to the petitioner, an accused in a corruption case under Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court imposed stringent conditions, including the submission of a personal bond with surety or fixed deposit, and a strict restriction limiting the petitioner to only one prepaid mobile number linked to their Aadhaar card throughout t

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to a personal bond/surety/fixed deposit of Rs. 10,000/25,000 and using only one prepaid mobile number linked to Aadhaar throughout the trial.

Anil Vij Vs State of Punjab — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRM-M-58515-2023

¶2

254 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-58515-2023 Reserved on: 29.11.2023 Pronounced on: 07.12.2023

Anil Vij

...Pe oner

Versus

State of Punjab …Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the pe oner.

¶10

Mr. Ravinder Singh, A.A.G., Punjab assisted by DSP Inder Pal Singh, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana.

¶11

****

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶13

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta on	Sec ons
15	10.10.2023	E.O.W., Vigilance	7-A of Preven on of
		Bureau, Ludhiana	Corrup on Act, 1988

¶14

The pe oner incarcerated in the FIR cap oned above has come up before this Court under Sec on 439 CrPC seeking bail.

¶15

In paragraph 17 of the bail pe on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶16

Pe oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi ons and is also voluntarily agreeable to the condi on that ll the conclusion of the trial before the trial court, the pe oner shall keep only one mobile number, which is men oned in AADHAR card, and within fiAeen days of release from prison undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The pe oner contends that the further pre-trial incarcera on would cause an irreversible injus ce to the pe oner and family.

¶17

The State opposes bail.

¶18

The prosecu on case is being extracted from status report dated 28.11.2023 filed by concerned DySP which reads as under:-

¶19

“3. That the Brief facts of this case are that the present FIR no.15 dated 10.10.2023 u/s 7-A Preven"on of Corrup"on Act 1988

¶20

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.07 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶21

¶22

CRM-M-58515-2023

¶23

as Amended by Amendment Act 2018 has been registered on the basis of the statement made by complainant Surinder Kumar Arora @ Happy, wherein it has been stated that the complainant is doing the business of sale and purchase of the proper"es. He and Rupinder Singh Grewal S/o Ranbir Singh R/o House No.52, Qile Wala, Barnahara, Partap Singh Wala, Ludhiana are having joint agricultural land at Village Barnahara, Hambran Road, Ludhiana and they were planning to create a park on that land, as such, a path leading to the house was constructed there. The pe""oner made WhatsApp call from his mobile phone no. 99142-60772 to the mobile phone no. 98145-41595 of the complainant and he had told the complainant that land in ques"on is situated within the jurisdic"on of GLADA. The pe""oner also told the complainant that SDO Davleen Singh and JE Amarjit Singh of GLADA have told him that the path constructed by the complainant will be demolished as he cannot construct such path on agricultural land. The pe""oner further told the complainant that he is a Press Reporter and he will publish the news in the newspaper that the complainant has constructed path on the land in ques"on. The pe""oner had demanded Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant for not taking any ac"on by the GLADA. The pe""oner told the complainant that out of this amount, Rs.1,00,000/- each will be paid to SDO Davleen Singh and JE Amarjit Singh whereas Rs.1,00,000/- be retained by him. In case, amount is not paid by the complainant, then he will get the path and house demolished from SDO Davleen Singh and JE Amarjit Singh.

¶24

4. That on 02.10.2022, Amarjit Singh JE GLADA made telephonic call to the complainant and asked him to stop the path whereas SDO Davleen Singh made a telephonic call to the complainant on 10.10.2023 in this regard. Since the complainant did not want to give bribe to the pe""oner, so on 10.10.2023 he came to the office of Economic Offences Wing, Punjab Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana and got recorded his statement and also produced audio recording along with currency notes of Rs.1,00,000/- before the vigilance officials. Copy of transcript is aBached herewith as Annexure R-1. It is submiBed that thereaDer trap was laid and the pe""oner was apprehended while taking

¶25

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.07 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶26

¶27

CRM-M-58515-2023

¶28

bribe amount of RS.1,00,000/- from complainant in the presence of official witnesses.”

¶29

Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega ons, and 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. Considering the bribe amount vis-a-vis pe oner’s custody since 10.10.2023, it is not a case for further pre-trial incarcera on.

¶30

In Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Inves ga on, (2012) 1 SCC 40, Supreme Court holds,

¶31

[28] We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same me, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the inves ga ng agency has already completed inves ga on and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further inves ga on. We are of the view that the appellants are en tled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent condi ons in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.

¶32

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 v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92] , (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.

¶33

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.

¶34

In Madhu Tanwar v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21] , CRM-M27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed,

¶35

[10] The exponen al growth in technology and ar ficial intelligence has transformed iden fica on techniques remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recogni on are incredibly sophis cated and pervasive. Impersona on, as we know it tradi onally, has virtually become impossible. Thus, the remedy

¶36

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.07 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶37

¶38

CRM-M-58515-2023

¶39

lies that whenever a judge or an officer believes that the accused might be a flight risk or has a history of fleeing from jus ce, then in such cases, appropriate condi ons 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.

¶40

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

¶41

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 :

¶42

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

¶43

(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, to any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep ng the surety, the concerned officer/court must sa sfy that if the accused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the court.

¶44

¶45

(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, 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 pe oner to prepare an account payee demand draA favouring concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the similar amount. (c). Such court shall have a lien over the funds 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.

¶46

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.07 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶47

¶48

CRM-M-58515-2023

¶49

(d). The pe oner is to also execute a bond for aTendance 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 of this bail order.

¶50

(e). While furnishing personal bond, the pe oner shall men on the following personal iden fica on details:

¶51

1.	AADHAR number
2.	Passport number, (If available), when the court
	aTes ng the bonds, thinks appropriate or considers the accused as a flight risk.
3.	Mobile number (If available)
4.	E-Mail id (If available)

¶52

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.

¶53

Pe oner to comply with their undertaking made in the bail pe on, made before this court through counsel as reflected at the beginning of this order. If the pe oner fails to comply with any of such undertakings, then on this ground alone, the bail might be canceled, and the vic m/complainant may file any such applica on for the cancella on of bail, and the State shall file the said applica on.

¶54

The pe oner is directed not to keep more than one prepaid SIM, i.e., one prepaid mobile phone number, ll the conclusion of the trial; however, this restric on is only on prepaid SIMs [mobile numbers] and not on post-paid connec ons or landline numbers. The pe oner must comply with this condi on within fiAeen days of release from prison. The concerned DySP shall also direct all the telecom service providers to deac vate all prepaid SIM cards and prepaid mobile numbers issued to the pe oner, except the one that is men oned as the primary number/ default number linked with the AADHAAR card and further that ll the no objec on from the concerned SHO, the mobile service providers shall not issue second pre-paid SIM/ mobile number in the pe oner’s name. Since, as on date, in India, there are only four prominent mobile

¶55

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.07 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶56

¶57

CRM-M-58515-2023

¶58

service providers, namely BSNL, Airtel, Vodafone-Idea, and Reliance Jio, any other telecom service provider are directed to comply with the direc ons of the concerned Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police, issued in this regard and disable all prepaid mobile phone numbers issued in the name of the pe oner, except the main number/default number linked with AADHAR, by taking such informa on from the pe oner’s AADHAR details or any other source, for which they shall be legally en tled by this order. This condi on shall con nue ll the comple on of the trial or closure of the case, whichever is earlier. In Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 INSC 655 , [para 45], while gran ng bail under Unlawful Ac vi es (Preven on) Act, 2002, Supreme Court had directed imposi on of the similar condi on, which reads as follows, “(d) Both the appellants shall use only one Mobile Phone each, during the me they remain on bail and shall inform the Inves ga ng Officer of the NIA, their respec ve mobile numbers.”

¶59

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 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 aAer that in Sec on 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not canceled due to non-appearance or breach of condi ons.

¶60

The condi ons men oned above imposed by this Court are to endeavour that the accused tries to reform, does not repeat the offence and to provide a sense of security to the vic m. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi , 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28] , Writ Pe on (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A ThreeJudge 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.”

¶61

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.

¶62

If the pe oner finds bail condi on(s) as viola ng fundamental, human, or other

¶63

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.07 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶64

¶65

CRM-M-58515-2023

¶66

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 aAer 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.

¶67

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.

¶68

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

¶69

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 aBest it to be a true copy. In case the aBes"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 aBes"ng bonds.

¶70

Pe%%on allowed in aforesaid terms . All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed.

¶71

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 07.12.2023 Jyo Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶72

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.07 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶73

Anil Vij v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Vij v. State of Punjab

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

Neeraj Vs State of Haryana

Charanjit Singh@Channi Vs State of Punjab

Shubham Vs State of Ut Chandigarh

Sandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Vinod Patwari Vs State of Haryana