IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Jaswinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-26105-2022
Decided On : 23-06-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Live-in-relationship - 420/376 IPC - 438 CrPC, 1973 - 27 Indian Evidence Act - Indian Arms Act, 1959 - Bail conditions
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case where the complainant alleged that the petitioner resiled from his promise to marry her after proposing a live-in-relationship.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents, the need for pre-trial incarceration, and the principles laid down in various Supreme Court cases to grant bail with stringent conditions.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's eligibility for anticipatory bail and the imposition of appropriate bail conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of bail as outlined in 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, and other cases to justify the grant of bail with stringent conditions.
Final Decision: The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions including the option to furnish surety bonds or fixed deposits, surrender of weapons, non-contact with the victim, and compliance with investigation requirements.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J.
FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
67 | 03.04.2022 | City Kapurthala | 420/376 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 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. The complainant who is a divorcee alleged that while going to pay obeisance at holy place, she came in contact with the petitioner-Jaswinder Singh. At that time, the petitioner claimed himself to be divorced and proposed to establish live-in-relationship to which she agreed. In the nutshell, the allegations are that petitioner-Jaswinder Singh resiled from his promise to marry her.
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 bail.
REASONING:
6. Even the victim was not a child or unmarried, who would not know the consequences of establishing live-in-relationship in traditional and orthodox societies.
At this stage, to blame the petitioner for all the sexual intercourses and on that ground not to accept his prayer would be stretching too far. In paragraph 6 of the bail petition, the petitioner denies any sexual relations. Be that as it may, the allegations do not justify pre-trial incarceration. Furthermore, the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraphs 5 & 7 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 Gudikanti Narasimhulu 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 g
Aparna Bhatt vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor
Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi
Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav
The main legal point established is the discretion of the court to grant bail with stringent conditions based on the circumstances of the case and the need to balance individual freedom with the righ....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a balanced approach between personal freedom and the right of police investigation when considering the grant of bail.
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 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 court's discretion in granting bail must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner, considering the circumstances and legal precedents.
The discretion of the judge in granting bail and the imposition of stringent conditions to ensure compliance and the safety of witnesses and victims.
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 court balanced the accused's right to personal freedom with the necessity of a fair trial and imposed stringent conditions to prevent influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, or in....
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.