Sikandar Bhardwaj vs State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2466

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Sikandar Bhardwaj – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M-3993 of 2023
Decided On : 09-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Nav Chahal, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondent: Mr. Virat Rana, AAG, Punjab.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail - Petitioner facing charges of snatching with no criminal antecedents sought bail - State opposed bail application - Court highlighted absence of grounds suggesting flight risk - Emphasized that bail should not become an illusory right and conditions should be judiciously imposed. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 12, 17)

(B) Legal principles on Bail - The basis for granting bail involves assessing the cumulative effects of various circumstances and ensuring that conditions do not infringe upon fundamental rights while balancing liberty and the necessity for a fair trial. (Paras 6, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, arrested on 24-11-2022 for snatching a complainant's property, sought bail, highlighting the nature of allegations and his status as a first offender, arguing that prolonged pre-trial detention would lead to irreversible injustice.

Findings of Court:
Granting bail subject to stringent terms that emphasize non-interference with the victim and society while ensuring the petitioner’s cooperation with judicial proceedings.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the nature of the alleged crime, the petitioner’s previous lack of criminal history, and conditions necessary to prevent influencing witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruling underscored the principle of 'bail, not jail', emphasizing the need for conditions that are proportionate and serve the purposes of justice without unnecessarily restricting the accused's rights.

Result: Petition allowed in aforesaid terms.

Table of Content
1. factual basis for the bail application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner’s arguments for bail. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's reasoning on bail conditions and precedents. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. conditions and options for bail. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. specific prohibitions and conditions regulating the petitioner. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. the balance of liberty and fair trial considerations. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
7. rights of the police and conditions for modifications. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
8. final order and disposition of the judgment. (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
106	24.11.2022	Division No.1, District Ludhiana	379-B(2), 34 IPC

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

3. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions. Petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. State opposes the bail.

Reasoning:

5. The allegations against the petitioner are that he along with other co accused snatched Rs.15,000/- and gold locket of complainant by putting data on his neck. As per paragraph 5 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 24.11.2022. Given the nature of allegations, the amount involved viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial or 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. Even a prima facie perusal of paragraph 6 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail.

6. 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 GudikantiNarasimhulu 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.