SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Deepak @ Deepu - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 34456 of 2020
Decided On : 20-12-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Manoj R. Sharma, Advocate, H.S. Sitta, Advocate, Sandeep Sharma, Advocate

The grant or refusal of bail must consider various circumstances, including the accused's criminal antecedents, the nature of the offence, and the need to prevent influencing the investigation and ensure the safety of the victim and witnesses.

Headnote:

BAIL - Criminal Procedure - 307, 323, 324, 34, 326, 120-B IPC - Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42; State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447; Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240; Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280; Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22; Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1; Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458; Aparna Bhatt v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 230; Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022

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 victim had compromised with the accused, and the petitioner had been in custody since 16-06-2022.

Finding of the Court:

The Court considered the circumstances, including the petitioner's first-time offender status, and the victim's compromise. It referenced various legal provisions and held that the petitioner made a case for bail, imposing stringent conditions to prevent influencing the investigation and ensure the safety of the victim and witnesses.

Issues: Bail application based on no criminal antecedents, irreversible injustice due to pre-trial incarceration, and victim's compromise.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the petitioner's first-time offender status, the victim's compromise, and various legal provisions to grant bail with stringent conditions.

Final Decision: The petition for bail was allowed, and stringent conditions were imposed to prevent influencing the investigation and ensure the safety of the victim and witnesses.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

16

23.02.2022

Sadar, Distt. Gurdaspur

307, 323, 324, 34, 326, 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 11 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. The State opposes the bail.

REASONING:

5. On Feb 22, 2022, the petitioner, and his accomplice Sikander Masih assaulted the victim. The petitioner Deepu hit the victim from the reverse side of the dattar on the wrist and thigh. After the launch of prosecution, the victim has compromised the matter with the accused, including the petitioner, vide compromise deed annexure P-2. The compromise is yet to be established before the court; however, the complainant's counsel does not dispute the factum of such a compromise; still, the same is relevant for bail without commenting on the admissibility of such compromise in evidence or for quashing the proceedings.

6. As per paragraph 8 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 16-06- 2022. Given above viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, 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 o

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top