IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Rajesh Singla - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 39666 of 2020
Decided On : 20-12-2022
IPC - Sections 420, 406, 120-B; Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositor in PE Act 2014 - Section 3 The court refers to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with the power of the High Court or the Court of Session to grant bail. The court also considers various legal principles and precedents related to granting bail to accused persons with a criminal history. The court does not specifically discuss the provisions of the IPC and the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositor in PE Act 2014, but refers to the nature of allegations against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner has filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking release from custody. The petitioner is accused of cheating the complainant by making false promises to investors. The State opposes the bail application based on the petitioner's criminal past. The court considers various factors, including the nature of allegations and the possibility of influencing the investigation, in granting bail to the petitioner. The court imposes certain terms and conditions for the petitioner's release on bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court refers to various precedents and legal principles related to granting bail to accused persons with a criminal history. The court emphasizes the need for judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion in granting bail. The court also highlights the importance of imposing appropriate conditions to prevent the accused from influencing the investigation or tampering with evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court grants bail to the petitioner based on the nature of allegations, the amount involved, and the absence of justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration. The court imposes specific terms and conditions for the petitioner's release on bail, including the furnishing of a personal bond and surety, or the deposit of a fixed amount. The court also emphasizes the need for the petitioner to comply with certain obligations, such as providing details of bank accounts and assets, and refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Result: The court allows the petitioner's bail application and grants bail subject to the specified terms and conditions.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J. -
FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
256 | 20.04.2018 | Sector 31, Distt. Fatehabad | 420 & 406 & 120-B IPC (Section 3 of Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositor in PE Act 2014 added later on) |
1. The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail.
2. In paragraph 27 of the bail petition, the accused declares there are criminal antecdents against him but he has not mentioned the detail.
3. The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.
4. While opposing the bail, the State contends that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.
REASONING:
5. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[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.
6. In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed, 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.
7. The allegations against the petitioner are that he along with other co accused have cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs 27 lacs by making false promises to the investors .
8. As per paragraph 20 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 05.03.2019. Given the amount involved viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Thus, the previous criminal history of the petitioner is not being considered strictly at this stage as a factor for denying bail. Furthermore, a prima facie perusal of paragraph 7 of the bail petition reveals sufficient grounds for granting bail.
9. 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 reje
Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh
GudikantiNarasimhulu v Public Prosecutor
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav
Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P.
The court emphasizes the need for judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion in granting bail. The court also highlights the importance of imposing appropriate conditions to prevent the accus....
The grant of bail must consider the cumulative effect of various circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail, and stringent conditions can be imposed to prevent influencing the investigatio....
The court may grant bail with stringent conditions, considering the period of incarceration, criminal antecedents, and legal provisions related to bail decisions from previous cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of judiciously considering various circumstances and legal provisions related to bail in granting bail to an accused with a criminal....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the accused's criminal history, the gravity of the offence, and the possibility of influencing the investigation and intimidat....
The court's discretion in granting bail must consider the accused's criminal history and the necessity of imposing stringent conditions to prevent further criminal activities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for judicious consideration of criminal history and the imposition of stringent conditions to address concerns related to influencing the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court in granting bail, the need for judicious consideration of bail petitions, and the imposition of stringent conditions to....
The court may grant bail with stringent conditions, considering the petitioner's criminal history and the nature of the offenses.
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.