Punjab-Haryana High CourtVikas Bibra vs State Of Punjab on 11 April, 2023Author:Anoop ChitkaraBench:Anoop ChitkaraNeutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050463\n\n\n\n\nCRM-M-57988-2022                                                                                       1\n\n\n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                             AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                                                      CRM-M-57988-2022\n                                                      Reserved on: 07.02.2023\n                                                      Pronounced on: 11.04.2023\n\nVikas Bibra                                           ...Petitioner\n\n                                      Versus\n\nState of Punjab                                       ...Respondent\n\n\nCORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA\n\nPresent:        Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner(s).\n\n                Mr. Aditya Kapoor, AAG, Punjab.\n\n                Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the complainant.\n\n                                      ****\nANOOP CHITKARA, J.FIR No.          Dated             Police Station         Sections\n 0211             28.08.2019        City Rajpura, Distt. 420, 120-B IPC (Section 201\n                                    Patiala                IPC added later on)1.    The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come\nup before this Court underSection 439of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)\nseeking bail.2.    In paragraph 20 of the bail application, the accused declares the following\ncriminal antecedents:Sr. No.   FIR No.         Date       Offences                  Police Station\n 1         0267            06.11.2021 406, 420IPCSadar Patiala, Distt. Patiala\n 2         135             22.11.2016 420, 406IPCMataur, Distt. SAS Nagar3.    Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions.The\npetitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice\nto the petitioner and family.4.    While opposing the bail, the State contends that given the criminal past, the\naccused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.REASONING:5.InMaulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble11 of 5::: Downloaded on - 13-04-2023 00:03:07 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050463CRM-M-57988-2022                                                                                      2Supreme Court holds,\n            [10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is\n            a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also\n            not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of\n            proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court,\n            merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second\n            respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the\n            Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has\n            been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing\n            away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.6.InParamjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M50243 of 2021, this court observed,\n            While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal\n            history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act\n            judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis\n            of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was\n            convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First\n            Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as\n            an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the\n            prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts\n            quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution\n            filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be\n            despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a\n            playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the\n            puddles.7.    As per paragraph 16 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since\n20-07-2021. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with\nthe primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to\nthis case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage,\nsubject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Thus, the\nprevious criminal history of the petitioner is not being considered strictly at this stage\nas a factor for denying bail.8.InSanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, Supreme\nCourt holds,\n               [28] We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged\n               with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also\n               conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may\n               jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we\n               cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has\n               already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already\n               filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their\n               presence in the custody may not be necessary for further\n               investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled\n               to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order\n               to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.9.    The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with\nevidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care22 of 5::: Downloaded on - 13-04-2023 00:03:07 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050463CRM-M-57988-2022                                                                                      3of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1,\nPara 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence\nproduced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.10.   Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar\nto this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail,\nsubject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and\nirrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII ofCrPC, 1973.11.   In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020,\ndecided on 14-01-2022, Para 53,[Law Finder Doc Id # 1933969], this Court observed,\n            [53]. The pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with\n            sureties, the "Court" and the "Arresting Officer" should give a choice\n            to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed\n            deposit, or direct electronic money transfer where such facility is\n            available, or creating a lien over his bank account. The accused\n            should also have a further option to switch between the modes. The\n            option lies with the accused to choose between the sureties and\n            deposits and not with the Court or the arresting officer.12.   Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the\npetitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, in the following terms:(a). Petitioner 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 satisfaction of\nthe concerned court, and in case of non-availability, any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty\nMagistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned court must satisfy that if the\naccused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the\ncourt.OR(b) Petitioner to hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten Thousand\nonly (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automatic renewal of the principal and the\ninterest reverting to the linked account, made in favor of the 'Chief Judicial Magistrate'\nof the concerned district. Said fixed deposit may be made from any of the banks where\nthe stake of the State is more than 50% or any of the well-established and stable\nprivate sector banks. The fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the\npetitioner's account.(c). Such court shall have a lien over the deposit until the case's closure or discharged\nby substitution, or up to the expiry of the period mentioned underS. 437-ACrPC, 1973,\nand at that stage, subject to the proceedings underS. 446CrPC, the entire amount of\nfixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor.(d). It shall be the total discretion of the petitioner to choose between surety bond and\nfixed deposit. It shall also be open for the petitioner to apply to the Investigator or the\nconcerned court to substitute the fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa.(e). On the reverse page of personal bond, the petitioner shall mention her/his\npermanent address along with the phone number, preferably that number which is33 of 5::: Downloaded on - 13-04-2023 00:03:07 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050463CRM-M-57988-2022                                                                                      4linked with the AADHAR, and e-mail (if any). In case of any change in the above\nparticulars, the petitioner shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such\nmodification, intimate about the change to the concerned police station and the\nconcerned court.(f). The petitioner is to also execute a bond for attendance in the concerned court(s) as\nand when asked to do so. The presentation of the personal bond shall be deemed\nacceptance of the declarations made in the bail petition and all other stipulations,\nterms, and conditions ofsection 438(2)of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and\nalso of this bail order.13.   The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement,\nthreat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any\nother person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade\nthem from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the\nevidence.14.   Within fifteen days from release from the prison, the petitioners shall forward on\nseparate notarized affidavits, to the Investigator/SHO and the complainant/victim(s) the\ncomplete details of bank account numbers with addresses, fixed deposits, DEMAT\naccount numbers, the current market value of jewelry, sovereign metals, all precious\narticles, held either individually or jointly, and cash-in-hand. If the petitioner fails to\ncomply with this condition, then on this ground alone. In that case, the bail might be\ncanceled, and the complainant may file any such application for the cancellation of\nbail, and State shall file the said application.15.   During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats or commits any offence\nwhere the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condition as\nstipulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for\ncancellation of this bail. It shall further be open for any investigating agency to bring it\nto the notice of the Court seized of the subsequent application that the accused was\nearlier cautioned not to indulge in criminal activities. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall\nremain in force throughout the trial and after that inSection 437-Aof the Cr.P.C., if not\ncanceled due to non-appearance or breach of conditions.16.   The conditions mentioned above imposed by this Court are to endeavour that the\naccused tries to reform, does not repeat the offence and to provide an opportunity to\nthe victim to consider legal remedies for recovery of the amount. In Mohammed Zubair\nv. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on\nJuly 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail\nconditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they\nseek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The44 of 5::: Downloaded on - 13-04-2023 00:03:07 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050463CRM-M-57988-2022                                                                                        5courts while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the\nnecessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation\nof rights and liberties must be eschewed." . In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of\nDelhi, Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A\nThree-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail conditions imposed\nby the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but\nmust also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing\nbail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial.\nWhile doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties\nmust be eschewed."17.   Any Advocate for the petitioner and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner\nputs signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order in any\nlanguage that the petitioner understands.18.   If the petitioner finds bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be\nbrought to the notice of this Court for appropriate reduction. Further, if the petitioner\nfinds bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing\ndifficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may\nfile a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to the\nCourt taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also\nbe competent to modify or delete any condition.19.   Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the\nmerits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.20.   In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the\naccused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.21. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and\nany Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the\nofficial web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer\nwants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may\ndownload and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.Petition allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.(ANOOP CHITKARA)\n                                                              JUDGE\n11.04.2023\nsonia arora\n\nWhether speaking/reasoned:             Yes\nWhether reportable:                    No.\n\n                                                                Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:05046355 of 5::: Downloaded on - 13-04-2023 00:03:07 :::