Ashish Jain vs State of Union Territory Chandigarh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2473

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Ashish Jain – Petitioner
Versus
State of Union Territory Chandigarh – Respondent
CRM-M-26133 of 2023
Decided On : 29-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Mr. Tarranum Madan, Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Advocates; For the Petitioner
Mr. Deepinder Brar, Addl. PP, UT Chandigarh.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 384, 420, 468, 471, 509, 120-B - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 66D, 67 - Foreigners Act, 1946 - Release on bail - Petitioner arrested on charges including cybercrime seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC - Pre-trial incarceration deemed unjustifiable due to absence of criminal antecedents - Principles of bail highlighted include balance of liberty and necessity of fair trial as stated in various Supreme Court judgments. (Paras 1, 6, 15, 18)

(B) Bail - Judicial discretion in granting bail - Courts must exercise this discretion judiciously, with regard to the gravity of the offence, potential danger to justice, and ensuring conditions do not infringe rights. (Paras 7, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is in custody since January 25, 2023, facing multiple charges, including cyber crimes. The petitioner claims lack of criminal history, while the prosecution opposed bail.

Findings of Court:
The court deemed that the petitioner qualifies for bail due to lack of previous convictions and justifiable concerns regarding pre-trial custody.

Issues: The court addressed the justifiability of continued incarceration before trial and the principles governing bail decisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that bail must not be denied without compelling reasons and emphasized the importance of conditions ensuring compliance without infringing on liberties.

Result: Petition is allowed in terms outlined, with the petitioner granted bail subject to specific conditions.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's arrest and bail request. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments for and against bail. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's observations on bail criteria. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. conditions for granting bail. (Para 8 , 10)
5. enforcement and consequences of bail conditions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20)
6. no comments on case merits. (Para 18)
7. order allowing the bail. (Para 21)

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
33	03.09.2022	Cyber Crime, Sector 17, Chandigarh	384, 420, 468, 471, 509 & 120-B IPC, Sections 66D & 67 of Information Technology Act 2000 and Section 14 of Foreigner's Act 1946

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail.

2. As per para 11 of the petition, the petitioner declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

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

4. State counsel opposed the bail.

Reasoning:

5. The petitioner operated similarly to the style of the infamous gang of Jamtara online thugs. No doubt these cyber thugs have brought disgrace to the entire country throughout the world over. As per para 5 of the petition, petitioner is in custody since 25.01.2023. Given the amount involved viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, there would be no justifiability in further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, petitioner is entitled to bail subject to the strict compliance of the terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraph 9 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 Gudikanti Narasimhulu 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. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2018) 3 SCC 22 , (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter a