IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Sonu @ Surinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-15441-2022
Decided On : 12-04-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Environmental Offences - Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957, Section 21, IPC Section 379 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 438 of CrPC, 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, and Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020. The court emphasized the need to balance personal freedom and the right of police investigation, and imposed specific conditions for bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under IPC Section 379 and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 related to illegal mining and transportation of materials.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, considering the lack of criminal history, the need for course correction, and the provisions of Section 438 of CrPC and relevant case laws.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in a case involving environmental offences and illegal mining.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the individual's right to personal freedom with the right of police investigation, imposing specific conditions for bail and considering the provisions of relevant case laws.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, subject to specific terms and conditions, including the choice between surety bonds and fixed deposits, surrender of weapons, and cooperation with the investigation.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J.
FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
51 | 26.03.2022 | Sadar Faridkot, District Faridkot | 379 IPC and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 |
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 14 of the petition, it is declared that the accused has no criminal history.
3. 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.
4. Ld. counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail contending that the petitioner has indulged in causing damage to environment through illegal and unscientific mining and transporting the material with permit and without paying the revenue.
REASONING:
5. 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 paragraph 3 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 petit
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance personal freedom with the right of police investigation, and the imposition of specific conditions for bail in cases involving ....
The court emphasized the need to balance personal freedom with the right of police investigation, imposing stringent conditions for anticipatory bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance individual freedom with the right of police investigation, as emphasized by legal precedents, when considering anticipatory bai....
The court balanced individual freedom with the need for an uninterrupted investigation, imposing stringent conditions to prevent influencing the investigation and tampering with evidence.
The court balanced individual freedom with the need for a fair trial and imposed stringent conditions to prevent further criminal activities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of balancing the accused's liberty and the necessity of a fair trial when considering bail conditions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's duty to balance individual freedom and police investigation rights when granting anticipatory bail, imposing stringent conditions to en....
The court emphasized the need to balance personal freedom and police investigation when granting anticipatory bail, citing previous court decisions and imposing stringent conditions to ensure uninter....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance personal freedom with the right of police investigation, and the importance of imposing stringent conditions to prevent interfe....
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.