Lekhraj Bairwa vs State of Union Territory Chandigarh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Lekhraj Bairwa – Petitioner
Versus
State of Union Territory Chandigarh – Respondent
CRM-M NO.21293 of 2023
Decided On : 03-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sohrab Dhanda, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Deepinder Brar, Standing counsel for 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 - Bail Application - The petitioner, with no criminal antecedents, sought bail after incarceration since 11.09.2022, which was granted under stringent conditions due to the possibility of influencing the investigation - The court noted that pre-trial incarceration's justification lacked merit given the case specifics amid concerns about cybercrime and potential flight risk. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13)

(B) Bail - Conditions - The Court elaborated on the need for conditions preventing witness tampering and influencing ongoing investigations, underscoring that bail conditions should not infringe fundamental rights but ensure a fair trial while balancing liberty. (Paras 10, 14, 19)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner was arrested on charges including cybercrime and alleged involvement with online thugs, seeking bail to avoid irreversible harm from continued detention.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner is entitled to bail with strict conditions to mitigate risks and safeguard investigation integrity.

Issues: The primary issues were the appropriateness of bail considering the nature of charges and ensuring proper conditions to prevent interference with justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized a balanced approach in setting bail conditions that align with case specifics while preserving the rights of the accused.

Result: Petition allowed in terms specified.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim with no prior criminal history. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner seeks bail citing family impact. (Para 3)
3. petitioner's comparison to notorious cybercriminal activity. (Para 4)
4. judicial discretion and principles of bail articulated. (Para 5)
5. conditions to prevent abuse of bail granted. (Para 6)
6. court's discretion to structure bail terms. (Para 7)
7. court's pragmatic approach on bail terms. (Para 8)
8. conditions for the grant of bail specified. (Para 9)
9. stringent conditions to ensure non-interference. (Para 10 , 11)
10. conditions tied to monitoring tech usage. (Para 12)
11. consequences of reoffending during trial. (Para 13)
12. balance of liberty and trial necessity in bail conditions. (Para 14)
13. explanation of bail terms to the accused. (Para 15)
14. right to modify terms for fundamental rights. (Para 16 , 17)
15. accused to exhibit desirable behavior post-bail. (Para 18)
16. administrative specifics on order dissemination. (Para 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
0033	03.09.2022	Cyber Crime, District 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 8 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.

3. State counsel opposed the bail.

Reasoning:

4. 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 3 of the petition, petitioner is in custody since 11.09.2022. Given the amount involved viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, there would be no justifiability in further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, petitioner(s) is entitled to bail subject to the strict compliance of the terms and conditions mentioned in this order.

5. 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