IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Madan Mohan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-26750-2022
Decided On : 29-06-2022
BAIL - Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act - 363/366-A IPC, 120-B IPC, 506 IPC, 376 IPC, 511 IPC, 212 IPC, 342 IPC, 3 POCSO Act, 4 POCSO Act, 8 POCSO Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 of CrPC in a case involving multiple sections of IPC and POCSO Act. The petitioner, maternal uncle of the main accused, argued no role in the alleged crime and emphasized the irreparable injustice of pre-trial incarceration.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the petitioner's relationship with the accused and the principles laid down in various Supreme Court judgments regarding bail. It found that the petitioner made a case for bail and imposed specific terms and conditions for release.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as the maternal uncle of the main accused, should be granted bail in a case involving serious criminal charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of bail as established in various Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing the need for judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion in granting bail. It also highlighted the importance of imposing stringent conditions to address concerns such as influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, and intimidating witnesses.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner, subject to specific terms and conditions, including the furnishing of surety bonds or fixed deposits, surrender of weapons, non-contact with the victim and family, and compliance with investigation and trial procedures.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J.
FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
57 | 14.05.2018 | Mehatpur, Jalandhar | 363/366-A IPC and later on added Sections 120-B IPC, 506, 376, 511, 212 and 342 IPC and Sections 3, 4, & 8 POCSO Act. |
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 paragraphs 20 and 23 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents except pending of FIR No.214 dated 15.12.2018, P.S. Shahkot, Jalandhar Rural, in which he is on bail.
3. The petitioner is stated to be the maternal uncle of the main accused Daljit Singh and Kuldeep Chand who stated to have married victims with their consents on crossing the age of 18 years.
4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is maternal uncle of the main accused Daljit Singh and Kuldeep Chand and no role of any kind has been attributed to him in the marriage of his nephews with the prosecutrix. He has been involved in the present case only being close relatives of accused Daljit Singh and Kuldeep Chand. 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 is maternal uncle of the accused and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a prima facie perusal of paragraphs 4 to 6 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail.
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 inv
Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh
GudikantiNarasimhulu v Public Prosecutor
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court in granting bail, the need for judicious exercise of such discretion, and the imposition of stringent conditions to add....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion in bail decisions, along with the imposition of stringent conditions to prevent int....
The main legal point established is the court's discretion in granting anticipatory bail, considering the prima facie case, the accused's behavior, and the protection of the victim's interests.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion in granting bail, with a focus on ensuring the safety of the victim and their family, and pr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a balanced approach between personal freedom and police investigation, and the factors justifying the grant of bail, including the abs....
The court has the discretion to grant bail with stringent conditions, taking into account the accused's background and the principles laid down in relevant case laws.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court in granting bail, the need for judicious consideration of bail petitions, and the imposition of stringent conditions to....
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.