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) 122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Karamjit Kaur – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-27340-2022
Decided On : 27-06-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Amitoj Singh Dhaliwal, DAG, Punjab, for the Respondent

The court can grant anticipatory bail with stringent conditions if the petitioner's age, being a first offender, and the maximum sentence for the offenses do not exceed seven years.

Headnote:

Bail - Anticipatory Bail - IPC 420, 506 & 120-B - [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, (Para 13)], [Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92], [Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013)15 SCC 570, Para 11], [Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case where the allegations were that they duped the complainant for a sum of Rs. 90 Lacs.

Finding of the Court:

The court granted bail to the petitioner based on the petitioner's age, being a first offender, and the maximum sentence for the offenses not exceeding seven years. The court imposed stringent conditions to prevent influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and fleeing justice.

Issues: Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's age, being a first offender, and the maximum sentence for the offenses not exceeding seven years. The court also relied on legal provisions and interpretations from previous cases to impose stringent conditions for granting bail.

Final Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail was allowed with stringent conditions imposed on the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

36

14.05.2022

Ajitwal, Moga, District Moga

420, 506 & 120-B IPC

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 17 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The allegations against the petitioner and co-accused are that they duped the complainant for a sum of Rs. 90 Lacs.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

5. Ld. counsel representing the State opposes the bail.

REASONING:

6. The petitioner is a lady aged just 39 years and after considering the allegations, and in the facts and circumstances peculiar to the petitioner, on this ground alone she is entitled to bail. Furthermore, the petitioner 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. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions. In Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013)15 SCC 570, Para 11, Supreme Court holds that while exercising power Under Section 438 of the Code, the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. While exercising utmost restraint, the Court can impose conditions countenancing its object as permissible under the law to ensure an uninterrupted and unhampered investigation.

9. 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.

10. 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.

      11. Given above, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the case mentioned above, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), and furnishing one surety for Rs. Twenty-Five thousand only (INR 25,000/-), to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigator. Before accepting the sureties, the concerned officer must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in Court, then such surety is capable of producing the petitioner before the C

      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