IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Shambhu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-27595-2022
Decided On : 01-07-2022
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) - 380, 454 IPC - Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 - Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in a case involving allegations of theft and receiving stolen property. The complainant did not oppose bail, and the petitioner had no criminal antecedents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, being a first offender and the maximum sentence for the offenses not exceeding seven years, was eligible for bail. The court also provided specific terms and conditions for the bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite the allegations of theft and receiving stolen property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles established in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, which directed against automatic arrest for offenses punishable with imprisonment for a term less than seven years. Additionally, the court referred to the decision in Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, which provided options for the accused to furnish surety bonds or fixed deposits.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was allowed, and specific terms and conditions were provided for the petitioner's release.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J.
FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
208 | 14.04.2022 | Civil Lines, Hisar, District Hisar | 380, 454 IPC (381, 411 IPC added & 380 IPC deleted 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 (Cr.P.C) seeking bail.
2. In paragraph 7 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. The allegations are of theft and receiving stolen property.
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. The contention on behalf of the complainant is that they have no objection if this court grants bail.
REASONING:
6. Given the stand of the complainant wherein they did not oppose bail, there would be no justification to continue pre-trial incarceration. The petitioner is in custody since 15-4-2022 and is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct.
7. In the present case, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years. Thus, directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, (Para 13), apply to this petition, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to arrest the accused automatically when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.
8. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.
9. In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53, [Law Finder Doc Id # 1933969], this Court observed,
[53]. The pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with sureties, the 'Court' and the 'Arresting Officer' should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed deposit, or direct electronic money transfer where such facility is available, or creating a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further option to switch between the modes. The option lies with the accused to choose between the sureties and deposits and not with the Court or the arresting officer.
10. Give above, provided the accused is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR mentioned above, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-) and shall furnish one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the satisfaction of the concerned Court/ Judicial Magistrate having the jurisdiction over the Police Station conducting the investigation, and in case of non-availability, any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the sureties, the concerned Court must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in Court, then such surety is capable of producing the petitioner before the Court.
11. In the alternative, the petitioner may furnish a personal bond of Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), and hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit(s) for Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), made in favour of Chief Judicial Magistrate of the concerned district. Said fixed deposit may be made from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50%, or any of the well-established and stable private banks, with the clause of automatic renewal of the principal and the interest reverting to the linked account.
12. The fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the applicant's account. If such a fixed deposit is made in
The judgment emphasizes the discretion of the court in granting bail, taking into account the nature of the offense, the petitioner's criminal antecedents, and the maximum sentence imposable for the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion in granting bail, imposition of restrictive conditions, and the accused's behavior ....
The court may grant anticipatory bail based on the nature of allegations, the offender's criminal history, and the penal provisions imposed by the Legislature.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the grant of anticipatory bail with stringent conditions to prevent influencing the investigation and intimidating witnesses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's duty to balance individual freedom and police investigation rights when granting anticipatory bail, imposing stringent conditions to en....
The grant of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge and must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner.
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 discretion of the court in granting bail, the need for a cumulative consideration of circumstances, and the imposition of stringent conditions ....
The need to balance personal freedom and the right of police investigation, imposing restrictive conditions, and providing opportunity for course correction.
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.