IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Manoj – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-32446-2022
Decided On : 31-08-2022
BAIL - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 439, 157, 379-B, 201, 34 IPC, and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act - 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, Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, Sushila Aggarwal, Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana - The court discussed the principles of bail, including the need to consider various circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail, the entitlement to bail for accused of non-bailable offences if the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case, and the discretion of the judge to grant or refuse bail. The court also emphasized the need for judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion in granting bail, imposition of restrictive conditions, and the balance between the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 of CrPC after being arrested in an FIR involving robbery and possession of illegal arms. 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, considering the nature of allegations, the amount involved, the petitioner's first offender status, and the need to provide an opportunity for course correction. The court also referenced various legal principles and precedents to support its decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the nature of the allegations and the potential impact of pre-trial incarceration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principles of bail, including the need to consider various circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail, the entitlement to bail for accused of non-bailable offences if the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case, and the discretion of the judge to grant or refuse bail. The court also emphasized the need for judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion in granting bail, imposition of restrictive conditions, and the balance between the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was allowed, and the court imposed specific terms and conditions for the petitioner's release, including the furnishing of a personal bond and surety, surrender of weapons, and compliance with various restrictions and reporting requirements.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J.
FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
157 | 06.04.2021 | Sadar Sonepat, Distt. Sonepat | 379-B, 201, 34 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act (Section 201 IPC added later on) |
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 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. On 06.04.2021, two motorcycle borne young persons, way laid the complainant, by showing him knife, snatched his mobile and wallet which had around Rs.15,000/- apart from id cards.
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 and states that 20 witnesses already stand examined.
REASONING:
6. The petitioner claims to be in custody since 13-04-2021. Given the nature of allegations, the amount involved viz-a-viz pre-trial custody of more than one year and four months, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial or pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Furthermore, 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 GudikantiNarasimhulu 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, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleein
Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh
GudikantiNarasimhulu v Public Prosecutor
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion in granting bail, imposition of restrictive conditions, and the balance between t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge, and it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a h....
The court emphasized the need for bail conditions to be proportional to their purpose and to balance the liberty of the accused with the necessity of a fair trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, imposing stringent conditions to prevent interference with the investigation and wi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, the imposition of stringent conditions to prevent interference with the judicial process, an....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge, and it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a h....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the accused's criminal history, the gravity of the offence, and the possibility of influencing the investigation and intimidat....
The judgment establishes the principle that bail decisions should consider the cumulative effect of circumstances, including the nature of the allegations, criminal history, and the need for stringen....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.