The discretion to grant bail must be exercised judiciously, and stringent conditions can be imposed to prevent influencing the trial process.

Headnote:
BAIL - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - 304 & 34 IPC - 439 CrPC
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 of CrPC, citing no criminal antecedents and irreversible injustice due to pre-trial incarceration. The State opposed bail.
Finding of the Court:

The Court granted bail, considering the nature of allegations, the petitioner's first offender status, and the need for course correction. The Court imposed stringent conditions to address concerns of influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, and intimidating witnesses.
Issues: Bail application, pre-trial incarceration, influence on investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the cumulative effect of circumstances, the need to establish a prima facie case, and the discretion to grant bail judiciously. It emphasized the need for stringent conditions to prevent influencing the trial process.
Final Decision: The petitioner was granted bail with stringent conditions to address concerns of influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, and intimidating witnesses.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

FIR No

Dated

Police Station

Sections

11.03.2021

Valtoha, District Tarn Taran

304 & 34 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 14 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions.The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. The State opposes bail.

REASONING:

5. The allegations are of culpable homicide in connivance of the co-accused.

6. As per paragraph 5 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 14-03-2021. Given the nature of allegations, and injuries inflicted by the petitioner, viz-a-viz pre-trial custody of more than 1 year and 10 months, i.e., around two years, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Furthermore, the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct.

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 grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.

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, th