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) 557

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Bhupinder Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-18390-2022(O&M)
Decided On : 16-05-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Sr. DAG, Punja, for the Respondent

The court balanced personal freedom with the right of police investigation and imposed stringent conditions to prevent influencing the investigation and tampering with evidence.

Headnote:

anticipatory bail - illegal cutting of trees - 379, 447 IPC - Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 - Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1 - Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013)15 SCC 570 - Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving illegal cutting of trees from Shamlat land.

Finding of the Court:

The court granted bail to the petitioners, imposing stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent influencing witnesses.

Issues: Anticipatory bail, first-time offender, maximum sentence, influencing investigation, tampering with evidence, imposing restrictive conditions, choice between surety bonds and fixed deposits, surrender of weapons, non-contact with victim's family, compliance with bail conditions, and further investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the allegations, the accused being a first-time offender, and the maximum sentence imposable for the offences. It also emphasized the need to balance personal freedom with the right of police investigation and imposed stringent conditions to prevent influencing the investigation and tampering with evidence.

Final Decision: The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions, including the choice between surety bonds and fixed deposits, surrender of weapons, non-contact with victim's family, and compliance with bail conditions.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

35

05.04.2022

Kathgarh, District SBS Nagar

379, 447 IPC

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

2. In paragraph 13 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The allegations against the petitioner are illegal cutting of 125 trees from the Shamlat land.

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

5. Ld. counsel representing the State opposes bail.

REASONING:

6. The petitioners is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraph 4 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail.

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 petitioners 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 their 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 petitioners shall be released on bail in the case mentioned above, subject to their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-) each, and furnishing one surety for Rs. Twenty-Five thousand only (INR 25,000/-) each, 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 petitioners before the Court.

      12. In the alternative, the petitioners may furnish a personal bond of Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-) each, and h

      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