The discretion of the judge in granting bail, consideration of prima facie case, and imposition of stringent conditions to ensure compliance and prevent influencing the investigation.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - For committing culpable homicide, the petitioner, now apprehending arrest came up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC, seeking anticipatory bail.

2. A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner straightaway filed the bail petition before High Court, which is permissible given the decision of a three Judges Bench of HP High Court, in Mohan Lal v Prem Chand, (1980) AIR H.P. 36 , (Para 9 & 15), wherein the Full bench holds that a person can directly apply for an anticipatory bail or regular bail to the High Court without first invoking the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge.

3. In Para 10 of the bail application, the petitioner declares of a case under S. 498- A IPC, and no other criminal history. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the accused.

4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that the mother of the deceased wrote a complaint to Dy.SP, Amb with a request to register a criminal case against concerned persons including owner/manager of New Hope Foundation (Regd.). She stated that her son was suffering from depression, who knew accused Harpreet Singh. Harpreet Singh alongwith co-accused Mohit Jaiswal (petitioner herein) allured his son to get rehabilitation at their centre, i.e., New Hope Yoga Centre (Nasha Mukti Kendra). Because of ill-health of her husband, she could not personally visit to verify and authenticate the atmosphere of the said centre. She further stated that on 18.2.2021 her son took admission in the centre and also paid a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Subsequently, charges were obtained from them from time to time. On 8.3.2021, accused Harpreet Singh informed the complainant about critical condition of her son. After a few minutes, accused Harpreet Singh again called her that he has reached at their house to pick them up. Initially, Harpreet told them that they had admitted her son in Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur but on reaching there, Harpreet took them to Aman Hospital, Hoshiarpur. On reaching Aman Hospital, they came to know that their son had expired. The complainant alleged that the death was due to the brutal treatment meted out to her son in the Nasha Mukti Kendra. Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has no criminal record and during interim bail, the petitioner joined the investigation. Thus, custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever and incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

6. While opposing the bail, the alternative contention on behalf of the State is that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, such a bond must be subject to very stringent conditions.

REASONING:

7. 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, (1977) AIR 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 othe