Inderjit Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

24

04.02.2023

Sadar Khanna,

Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana

452, 323, 506, 148, 149, 427 IPC

(Sections 458 IPC and 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 added later on.

Criminal Case no. before trial Court

CIS No. 1286 dated 13.02.2023 CNR No. PBLD01-003915-2023

Date of Order: 20.02.2023

Aggrieved by the dismissal of his bail under secon 438 CrPC, the accused has come up before this court by filing an appeal under secon 1 4-A of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevenon of Atrocies) Act, 1989, (SCSTPOA ), seeking bail.

The appellants had filed a bail applicaon before the Judge Special Court, Ludhiana, which was dismissed on 20.02.2023.

In Prathvi Raj v. Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1036, a three-judge bench of Supreme Court read down S. 18 by declaring as follows,

[10]. Concerning the applicability of provisions of secon 438 Cr.PC, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by secon 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply.

In paragraph 10 of the bail peon, the accused d eclares that they has no criminal antecedents.

The allegaons are abusing the people belonging t o the scheduled castes by using the derogatory words prohibited under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevenon of Atrocies) Act, 1989 (SCSTPOA).

The accused’s counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condions.The appellant’s contenon is that the custodial invesg aon would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceraon would ca use an irreversible injusce to the appellant and family.

State opposes the bail.

REASONING:

On primafacie analysis of the nature of allegaon s and other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jusfiability for custo dial or pre-trial incarceraon at this stage. Furthermore, the appellants are first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraph 5 of the bail appeal needs consideraon f or bail.

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constuonal Bench of Supreme Court held that the b ail decision must enter the cumulave effect of the variety of circumstances jus fying 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 entled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecuon 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 sasf acon for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situaons. The re jecon of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent applicaon. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situaon. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court no ceably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggesve of fleeing from jusce or th warng the course of jusce or creang other troubles in the shape of repeang offe nces or inmidang witnesses and the like by the appellant who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the appellant to avoid the course of jusce and must weigh when considering the queson of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikan Narasimhulu v Public Pros ecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the negave criteria necessitang that course. In P rahlad Singh Bha 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 consideraons. In Dataram Singh v State of Uar Pradesh , (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is enrely within the discreon of the judge hearing the maer and though that discreon is unfeered, it must be exer cised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, condions for the gra nt of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.

The possibility of the accused influencing the invesgaon, tampering with evidence, inmidang witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing jusce, can be taken care of by imposing elaborave and stringent condions. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constuonal Bench held that unusually , subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restricve condion s.

Without commenng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons menoned above, t he appellant makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and condions, which shall be over and above and irrespecve of the contents of the form of bail bon ds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53, [Law Finder Doc Id # 1933969], this Court observed,

[53]. The pragmac approach is that while granng ba il with surees, the “Court” and the “Arresng Officer” shoul d give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed deposit, or direct electronic money transfer where such facility is available, or creang a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further opon to switch between the mod es. The opon lies with the accused to choose between the surees and deposits and not with the Court or the arresng officer.

Given above, provided the appellants are not required in any other case, the appellants shall be released on bail in the FIR caponed above, in the following terms :

(a). appellants to furnish personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-); AND

(b) To give one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the sasfacon of the concerned invesgator/SHO. Before accepng the surety, the concerned officer must sasfy that if the accused fail to appear in c ourt, then such surety can produce such accused before the court.

OR

(b) appellants to hand over to the concerned inves gator/SHO a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automac renewal of the principal and the interest reverng to the linked account, ma de in favour of the ‘Chief Judicial Magistrate’ of the concerned district. The fixed deposit may be made from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or any of the well-established and stable private sector banks. The fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the appellant’s account.

(c). In case of the launching of the prosecuon, th e said fixed deposit be forwarded to the concerned court along with the police report/challan under 173 CrPC.

(d). Such court shall have a lien over the deposit unl the case's closure, or discharged by substuon, or up to the expiry of the period me noned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the enre amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor.

(e). It shall be the discreon of the appellants to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits. It shall also be open for the appellant to apply to the Invesgator or the concerned court to substute the fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa.

(f). On the reverse page of personal bond, the appellant shall menon her/his permanent address along with the phone number, preferably that numbers which is linked with the AADHAR, and e-mail (if any). In case of any change in the above parculars, the appellant shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modificaon inmate about the change to the concerne d police staon and the concerned court.

(g). The appellants are to also execute a bond for aendance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presentaon of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declaraons made in the bail pe on and all other spulaons, terms, and condions of secon 438(2) of the Code o f Criminal Procedure, 1973, and also of this bail order.

The appellants are directed to join the invesga on within seven days and also as and when called by the Invesgator . The appellants shall be in deemed custody for Secon 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The appellant s shall join the invesgaon as and when called by the Invesgang Officer or any Superio r Officer; and shall cooperate with the invesgaon at all further stages as requi red. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecuon to seek cancellaon of the bail. Whenever the invesgaon occurs within the police premises, the appellant shall not be called before 8 AM, let off before 6 PM, and shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

The appellants shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.

Given the nature of the allegaons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the appellants shall surrender all weapons, firearms, ammunion, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fieen days from today and inform the Invesgator about the compliance. Howeve r, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the appellant shall be entled to renew and t ake it back in case of acquial in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules.

Till the compleon of the trial, the appellants shall not contact, call, text, message, remark, stare, stalk, make any gestures or express any unusual or inappropriate, verbal or otherwise objeconable beh avior towards the vicm and vicm's family, either physically, or through phone call or any other social media, through any other mode, nor shall unnecessarily roam around the vicm's home.

During the trial's pendency, if the appellants repeat or commit any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condion as spulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for cancellaon of this bail. It shall further be open for any invesg ang agency to bring it to the noce of the Court seized of the subsequent applicaon that the accused was earlier cauoned not to indulge in criminal acvies. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and aer that in Secon 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not canceled due to non-appearance or breach of condions.

The condions menoned above imposed by this cou rt are to endeavour that the accused does not repeat the offence and to ensure the safety of the witnesses, vicm, and their families. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Peon (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “The bail condions impose d by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proporonal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail condions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condions that would result in the deprivaon of rights and l iberes must be eschewed.”

Any Advocate for the appellants and the Officer in whose presence the appellants puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all condions of this bail order in any language that the appellants understand.

If the appellants find bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be brought to the noce of this Court for appropriate reducon. Further, if the appellant finds bail condion(s) as violang fundamental, huma n, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situaon, then for modificaon o f such term(s), the appellants may file a reasoned applicaon before this Court, and a er taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condion.

This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the invesgang agency from further invesgaon as per law.

In case the Invesgator/Officer-In-Charge of the c oncerned Police Staon arraigns another secon of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new secon prescribes maximum sentence which is not greater than the sec ons menoned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added secon(s).

However, suppose the newly inserted secons prescri be a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the secons menoned above, then, in that case, the Invesgator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the appellan t noce of a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

Any observaon made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

In return for the protecon from incarceraon, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.

The SHO of the concerned police staon or the in vesgang officer shall arrange to send a copy of this order, preferably a so copy , to the complainant and the vicm, without any delay. If the vicm(s) noce any viola on of this order, they may inform the SHO of the concerned police staon, the trial court , or even this court.

There would be no need for a cerfied copy of this o rder for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Appellant can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and aest it to be a true copy. In case the aesng officer wants to verify the authencity, such an officer can also verify its authencity and may download and use the downloaded copy for aesng bo nds.

Appeal allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applicaons, if any, stand disposed.