PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Rajan Dass – Appellant
Versus
State Of Ut Chandigarh – Respondent
CRM-M-5868-2025
Decided on : 15-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application under specific statutory provisions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on the necessity and implications of bail. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. reasoning behind granting bail based on evidence presented. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. conditions and implications of the granted bail. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Chitkara, J. -
FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
467 | 19.12.2023 | Sector-36, Chandigarh | 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC |
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, [ BNSS ], seeking regular bail.
2. Per paragraph 14 of the bail application, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. | FIR No. | Date | Offenses | Police Station |
1 | 422 | 15.11.2023 | 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC | Sector 36 |
2 | 07 | 12.01.2024 | 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC | Sector 36 |
3 | 124/2019 | - | 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC | Ambala City |
4 | 221/2014 | - | 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC | Ambala City |
5 | 131/2021 | - | 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC | Fatehgarh Sahib |
6 | 104 | 31.08.2016 | 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC | Fatehgarh Sahib |
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from translated version of FIR, which reads as follows:-
'Respected SHO Sir, it is requested that a Court Order CNR No: CHCH020039082023, CIS No: EXE/593/2023 in Case KRISHNA DEVI VS VINOD MANOCHA etc issued by the court of Sh. Puneet Mohinia, Civil Judge Jr. Division, Chandigarh, UID No. PB00497 to registered case under U/S 420 IPC and Other relevant Sections against Gurinder Singh S/o Raghveer Singh R/o Village- Balyali, Tehsil. Mohali, Distt. SAS Nagar, PB. Age-25 Years, from the above mentioned Court of Naib Court, was received at Police Station stated as CNR No.CHCH020039082023, CIS No: EXE/593/2023. KRISHNA DEVI VS VINOD MANOCHA etc. Present: Sh. Yogesh Mittal, Advocate, Counsel DH. Sh. Vikram Singh Vohra, Advocate Counsel for the Jds. Today, the present execution was fixed for awaiting report of Tehsildar as well as Halqa Patwari. However, Halqa Patwari Sh, Sukhpal Singh has appeared and suffered statement that he is posted as Halqa Patwari of village Baliali Tehsil Distt SAS Nagar, Mohali in the month of November, 2023 and he was only Patwari, who could have made a revenue report regarding the land situated in the revenue estate of village Baliali Tehsil Distt SAS Nagar, Mohali in the month of November, 2023. He further stated that he has seen the Copy of Jamabandi of the Year 2017 produced in this case, as per which, Sh. Gurinder Singh Son of Sh. Raghubir Singh Son of Sh. Sucha Singh is the owner to the extent of 61/1944 share i.e 21/2 sarsahi i.e. less than half marla land, out of total 9 marla land falls in khewat no. 144 Khatoni No.146 situated in village Ballall Tehsil Distt SAS Nagar, Mohali. He further stated that he has not scribed the word 18 marla/10 marla on the jamabandi produced in the case and he has also seen the application for issuance of market value verification dated 24.11.2023 in the court file in which he has never given any report as Halqa Patwari of Village Baliali Tehsil Distt SAS Nagar, Mohall. He further stated that the alleged report Mark A1 does not of his handwriting and it does not bears his signatures and there is no such type of stamp in the name of Halqa Patwari Baliali Tehsil Distt SAS Nagar, Mohali as affixed on the report was/is ever available with the said Halqa Patwari of Village Baliali Distt SAS Nagar, Mohali. Meaning thereby the surety which was furnished in the present Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 after the order of Ld. Appellate Court, seems to be filed on the basis of false forged documents and this fact is required to be investigated by the police authorities. As such, copy of all the documents be sent to the concerned SHO/In-charge of jurisdictional police station along with copy of this order for registering FIR against the surety under Section 420 other relevant Sections under the provisions of IPC. As the Court has proceeded on the exhaustive report/
The court recognized that continued pre-trial incarceration without sufficient justification may constitute an injustice to the appellant, thereby granting bail under specified conditions.
Bail should be granted unless compelling reasons exist to deny it, emphasizing judicial discretion and the presumption of innocence.
The court emphasized the requisite balance between personal liberty and the necessity of pre-trial detention, highlighting Article 21's protection against unjust deprivation of liberty.
Bail can be granted based on age, lack of antecedents, and significant time already served, ensuring conditions are set to prevent influence on witnesses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion in bail decisions, along with the imposition of stringent conditions to prevent int....
The court emphasized the need for judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion in granting bail, imposing stringent conditions to prevent influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence,....
Bail conditions must not be excessively onerous, as this equates to a refusal of bail, violating the principles of justice, especially for foreign nationals under Article 21.
Granting anticipatory bail based on the bailable nature of the offenses and the specific circumstances of the case.
The grant of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge and must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.