Akash Kumar @ Akku vs State of Haryana

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Akash Kumar @ Akku – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M NO. 51090 of 2022
Decided On : 19-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Rajat Gautam, D.A.G., Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Petitioner seeks bail on the grounds of parity, referencing a co-accused granted bail due to similar circumstances - State does not dispute severity of allegations - As per Supreme Court jurisprudence, bail should be granted considering the cumulative effect of circumstances, including absence of criminal antecedents and likely trial duration. (Paras 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12)

(B) Principles of Bail - Bail is favored unless circumstances suggest fleeing justice or tampering with evidence; terms must also ensure the rights of the accused are upheld without unnecessary strictness. (Paras 10, 16)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner accused in FIR involving multiple serious charges, incarcerated since May 2021, without prior criminal record. The petition for bail emphasizes similarity with co-accused who was granted bail due to lengthy trial delays and no further accusations against him.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner is granted bail under stringent conditions to ensure compliance and safeguard witnesses and victims.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's case warrants bail based on parity with a co-accused and established legal principles for granting bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the principle that bail should be granted barring significant concerns about justice interference, emphasizing non-excessive bail conditions while safeguarding public interest.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. incarceration details of the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2)
2. bail application based on co-accused's situation. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's reasoning based on prior judgments. (Para 5 , 6)
4. conditions for bail to ensure fair trial. (Para 7 , 8)
5. judicial discretion on bail conditions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
6. provisions to protect the victim. (Para 13 , 14)
7. consequences for bail violation. (Para 15 , 16)
8. explanation of bail conditions and modification process. (Para 17 , 18)
9. police rights regarding further investigation. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
10. order provisions and compliance process. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
50	16.02.2021	Baldev Nagar, Ambala	302, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 452, 506 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 11 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 CRM-M-13175-2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by this court. Counsel for petitioner claims bail on the grounds of parity and does not press 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. As per paragraph 5 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 11.05.2021. Perusal of the order dated 14.10.2022 vide which 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 of this order.

"The petitioner has been in custody since 24.02.2021. Out of 31 prosecution witnesses, 29 witnesses are yet to be examined. Trial is unlikely to conclude any time soon. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Moreover, there is no other case registered or pending against the petitioner, under the aforesaid sections."

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)