2022 Supreme(P&H) 443

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Gurpreet Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-15489-2022
Decided On : 13-04-2022

The Court emphasized the need to consider the criminal history of the accused, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences, and the balance between personal freedom and the right of police investigation in granting anticipatory bail.

Headnote:

Anticipatory Bail - Criminal History - Mines and Minerals Act - Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development ) Act, 1957 - IPC 379 - [10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc. [11] While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles. [13] 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. [14] 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.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for offences under IPC 379 and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development ) Act, 1957. The second petitioner had a criminal history related to similar offences.

Finding of the Court:

The Court considered the criminal history of the second petitioner, the nature of the offences, and the possibility of influencing the investigation, and granted bail with stringent conditions.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail considering the criminal history of the second petitioner and the nature of the offences.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, and the maximum sentence imposable for the offences did not exceed seven years, thus applying the directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. The Court also emphasized the need to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police.

Final Decision: The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions to ensure an uninterrupted and unhampered investigation.