Sandeep vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2510

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2510

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Sandeep – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-61072 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 18-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana Advocate with Ms. Minaz Khan, Advocate; For the Petitioners
Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - The petitioner, having no criminal antecedents and seeking bail on grounds of parity with co-accused, was granted bail. The State did not dispute the allegations as less severe than those of the co-accused. (Paras 1, 4, 5)

(B) Legal Principles - A bail decision must consider various circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail, and the principle 'bail, not jail' applies unless there are circumstances suggesting flight risk or obstruction of justice. Past cases emphasized bail is a right unless countered by significant reasons. (Paras 7, 8, 11)

(C) Conditions for Bail - The court specified that the petitioner comply with stringent conditions to ensure non-repetition of offences and witness safety. (Paras 10, 12, 15, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with an FIR involving multiple serious charges, including assault and conspiracy to obstruct justice, and had been in custody since March 15, 2022, without previous convictions.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that, in light of parity and circumstances, the bail could be granted with conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensuring witness safety.

Issues: The main issue centered around the justification for granting bail and maintaining witness protection.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the nature of allegations did not warrant continued incarceration and emphasized ensuring a fair trial while balancing the liberty of the petitioner.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petition for bail filed due to no prior crimes. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments based on bail parity and allegations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court's reasoning on bail conditions and principles. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 17)
4. conditions and implications of bail orders. (Para 11 , 12 , 18 , 20 , 21)
5. conclusion affirming bail and procedural details. (Para 19 , 22 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
97	14.3.2022	HSIDC Barhi, District Sonipat	148, 149, 323, 307, 195A, 120-B and 506 IPC and Section 325 IPC (added later on).

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 22 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. Petitioner's counsel has drawn attention of this court to bail order of similarly placed co-accused i.e. CRM-M-28289-2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by this court. Counsel for petitioner claims bail on the grounds of parity and does not press this petition on merits.

4. State does not dispute the fact that the allegations against the petitioner are not more severe than co-accused who was granted bail.

Reasoning:

5. The allegation against the petitioner are that he along with other co-accused assaulted the complainant and restrained him from giving evidence in murder case.

6. As per paragraph 17 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 15.03.2022. Perusal of the order dated 05.12.2022 vide which similarly placed co- accused was granted bail covers petitioner's case on the grounds of parity for the reasons that they are identically placed. It is appropriate to reproduce paragraph this order:-

"The petitioner has been in custody since 23.03.2022. The recovery has already been effected from the petitioner. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant had already been examined before the Court below in FIR No.273 dated 22.06.2019, which was lodged with regard to the murder of complainant's uncle. Prosecution evidence is yet to commence. In such circumstances, the trial of the case would take a long time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

In view of the above and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned."

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 petit