Harwinder Singh @ Teja @ Teja Singh vs State of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2515

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Harwinder Singh @ Teja @ Teja Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M NO. 20554 of 2023
Decided On : 28-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. H.S. Jakhal, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondent: Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, DAG, Punjab.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - Petition for bail granted under stringent conditions to prevent the accused from tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or repeating offences - Criminal history considered, but bail granted since custodial interrogation was not justified. (Paras 5, 12, 18)

(B) Legal principles established regarding standards for bail, considering the balance between defendants' liberty and fair trial. (Paras 8, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR alleging serious offences. The State opposed the bail based on the petitioner’s criminal past.

Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient grounds for granting bail under conditions aimed at ensuring the integrity of the trial and safety of witnesses.

Issues: The main issues included the petitioner's criminal antecedents and whether the circumstances justified anticipatory bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of a fair trial, the rights of the accused, and the need for reasonable bail conditions.

Result: Petition allowed in the terms specified.

Table of Content
1. basic facts regarding the fir and criminal history. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments for and against anticipatory bail. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's analysis of bail considerations and precedents. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. conditions and procedures established for bail. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. conclusion and disposal of the petition. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
18	28.02.2023	Khuain Sarwar, Abohar, District Fazilka	308, 325, 323, 34 IPC

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 12 of the bail application, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Dated	offences	Police Station
1.	48	27.01.2016	379 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984	Sadar Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan
2.	395	14.10.2015	379, 353, 143 IPC	Sadar Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan

3. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions. Petitioner's counsel argued that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. While opposing the bail, State's counsel 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 of giving 3-4 blows of plaas (plier) which hit on both sides of head and behind right ear of complainant. On prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, injuries inflicted by the petitioner, and other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial or pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 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.

8. 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 justi