Radhey Sham vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2517

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Radhey Sham – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-S-1200 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate; For the Appellant
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajat Gautam, DAG, Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 438 and 437A - Appeal against bail denial - Court allows bail, stating the nature of allegations does not warrant pre-trial incarceration, considering the appellant as a first offender. (Paras 3, 8, 19)

(B) Bail - Conditions - Court emphasizes conditions must ensure compliance without being excessively stringent or infringing on rights, citing earlier precedents. (Paras 10, 19)

Facts of the case:
Appellant filed for bail after denial by the lower court in a case involving allegations under the Atrocities Act. The complaints include threats and derogatory remarks against scheduled caste individuals. He argued that pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice.

Findings of Court:
Court found prima facie no justifiable ground for custodial interrogation, highlighting the accused's right to liberty as a first offender. Bail granted with specific conditions.

Issues: The key issues included whether the nature of allegations justified bail denial and the adequacy of current legal provisions in safeguarding the appellant's rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the initial allegations do not present a prima facie case sufficient to warrant custodial detention at pre-trial stage, aligning with established legal principles regarding bail—favoring liberty unless there’s a substantial risk of obstructing justice.

Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
105	18.03.2023	Sadar Hisar, Hansi	323, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), 1989

Criminal Case no. before trial Court	CIS No.BA/1078/2023
	CNR No.HRHS010051802023.
	Date of decision: 17.04.2023

CRM-18034-2023

Allowed as prayed for.

CRA-S-1200-2023

Aggrieved by the dismissal of his bail under section 438 CrPC, the accused has come up before this court by filing an appeal under section 14-A of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (SCSTPOA), seeking bail.

2. The appellant had filed a bail application before the ASJ,Hisar, which was dismissed on 17.04.2023.

3. In Prathvi Raj v. Union of India , AIR 2020 SC 1036 , a three-judge bench of Supreme Court read down Section 18 by declaring as follows,

[10]. Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by section 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply.

4. In the appeal, the accused is silent about criminal antecedents.

5. The allegations are of threatening and abusing the people belonging to the scheduled castes by using the derogatory words prohibited under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SCSTPOA).

6. The accused' s counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions.The appellant's contention is that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the appellant and family.

7. State opposes the bail.

Reasoning:

8. On primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial or pre-trial incarceration at this stage. Furthermore, the appellant a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct.

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 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 appellant who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the appellant 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 favours release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi , (2001) 4 SCC 28