SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 174

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

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ritesh K. Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rajat Gautam, DAG, Haryana., Mr. Manoj K. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant, for the Respondent

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 offenses.

Headnote:

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

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top