Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Ram Niwas – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-12625-2022
Decided On : 31-08-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Naveen Siwach, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rajat Gautam, DAG, Haryan, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail is subject to a judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion, taking into account the nature of allegations, the accused's background, and the need to ensure the safety of witnesses and the victim.

Headnote:
BAIL - Criminal Procedure - 147, 149, 186, 189, 307, 332, 353, 204, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1(r)), 3(1)(s), 3(2), (va) of Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) (Amendment 2015) - The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions, considering the nature of allegations, the petitioner's first-time offender status, and relevant legal precedents.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought bail after being arrested in a case involving various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) (Amendment 2015). The petitioner claimed to have no criminal antecedents and argued that pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice.
Finding of the Court:

The court granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the nature of the allegations, the petitioner's first-time offender status, and the need to provide an opportunity for course correction. The court imposed stringent conditions to address concerns about influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, and intimidating witnesses.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail given the serious nature of the allegations and the potential impact of pre-trial incarceration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered relevant legal precedents, including the principles outlined in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, State of Rajasthan v Balchand, Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, and Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, to justify the grant of bail. The court also emphasized the need for judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion in granting bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's bail petition, subject to stringent conditions, to ensure the safety of witnesses, the victim, and their families, and to prevent the repetition of the offense.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
51	08.02.2022	Uchana, District Jind	147, 149, 186, 189, 307, 332, 353, 204 and 506 IP and Sections 3(1(r) ,3(1)(s), 3(2), (va) of Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) (Amendment 2015)

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

2. In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The petitioner allegedly gave beatings to the Investigating Officer, caught him from his neck, torn his uniform, and disgraced him by addressing from the caste based derogatory words. His accomplices hit him on the head and all intimidated him with dire consequences.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

5. Ld. counsel representing the State opposes bail.

REASONING:

6. The petitioner was arrested on 15-02-2022. Given the nature of allegations, and injuries attributed to the petitioner, viz-a-viz pre-trial custody of more than six months, there would be no justifiability for further custodial or pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Moreover, the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct.

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, 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) 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.

8. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tamp