Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Kesha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-12630-2022
Decided On : 12-05-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sandeep K. Rana, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rajat Gautam, DAG, Haryana, for the Respondent

The decision to grant bail was based on the special reasons emerging from the investigation and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents.

Headnote:
Bail - Kidnapping - IPC 364-A, 506 & 120-B - CrPC 439
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought bail after being arrested for his alleged involvement in a kidnapping case where a ransom was demanded for the release of a 12-year-old boy. The petitioner, a 70-year-old woman, had no criminal antecedents and was in custody for over eleven months.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioner, being a woman and a first-time offender, was entitled to bail due to the special reasons emerging from the investigation and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the seriousness of the charges and the potential impact of pre-trial incarceration on the petitioner and her family.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered various legal provisions, including Section 437(1) of the CrPC, and cited precedents such as Lingaram Kodopi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab to justify the grant of bail based on the peculiar circumstances of the case and the special reasons emerging from the investigation.
Final Decision: The petitioner was granted bail with specific terms and conditions, including the furnishing of a personal bond and surety, surrender of weapons, and restrictions on contacting the victim and entering certain areas.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
130	30.05.2021	Sarai Khawaja, Faridabad, District Faridabad	364-A, 506 & 120-B IPC

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 paragraph 10 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. On May 23, 2021, the complainant informed the police that his brother's son aged 12 years, had been kidnapped and a ransom of Rs. fifty thousand was demanded for safe release. On a frantic search, the police recovered the boy unharmed, from a slum, and arrested the accused including the petitioner.

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.

REASONING:

6. The boy was allegedly kept by the kidnappers in the jhuggi of the petitioner. There is no allegation of any maltreatment, non-providing of food, or assault. The petitioner is a woman aged 70 years, in custody since May 30, 2021, i.e., for more than eleven months and 10 days, and is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct.

7. The petitioner is not only a woman but also a mother, and the special reasons for bail emerging from the investigation and the facts and circumstances peculiar to the case, entitle her to bail at this stage.

8. Section 437(1) mandates that when any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but - (i) such person shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life; (ii) such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognisable offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of [a cognisable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but not less than seven years]: Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm; provided further that the Court may also direct that a person referred to in clause (ii) be released on bail if it is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other special reason; however, only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor.

9. In Lingaram Kodopi v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2014) 3 SCC 474, the appellants before Supreme Court had been implicated under Sections 121, 124(1) and 120B of the IPC read with Section 8 (1) (2) (3) of the Chhattisgarh Jansuraksha Adhiniyam and Sections 10 & 13 of the Unlawful Activities of the Act, on the allegations that they were likely to work as conduit for paying huge ransom amount to the Naxaltiesfor smooth running of a plant in the naxal affected areas. While granting bail, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

[15]. On the basis of the aforesaid orders, both the appellants are on bail with the condition that they would not enter the State of Chhattisgarh during this period. Other two accused persons have already been granted bail. Charges are yet to be framed. Soni Sori is having medical problems as well. There are certain circumstances, pleaded by the appellants, and if ultimately established, there may be a possibility of proving the innocence of the appellants. Soni Sori has lost her husband and has to look after her children who are of tender ages. Lingaram Kodopi, who is a young man of 24 years, clai