Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajan Rana vs State Of Punjab on 22 March, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041941
CRM-M-14954-2024 2024:PHHC:041941
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
234 CRM-M-14954-2024
Date of Decision: 22.03.2024
Rajan Rana ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the pe oner.
Mr. Kanav Bansal, D.A.G, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta.on Sec.ons
24 06.02.2024 Ajnala, Amritsar 416, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468,
(Rural) 471, 120-B IPC
1. The pe oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap oned above, has come up before this Court under Sec on 438 CrPC seeking an cipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 25 of the bail pe on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. Pe oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi ons and states that ll the conclusion of the trial, the pe oner shall keep only one mobile number, which is men oned in AADHAR card, if any, and within fi=een days undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The pe oner contends that custodial interroga on and pre-trial incarcera on would cause an irreversible injus ce to the pe oner and family.
4. The facts of the case are being taken from the FIR (Annexure P-1), which reads as follows:
In reference to complaint No. 46 dated 31.01.2024 from Baljit Singh Reader, in the Court of Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Ld. S.D.J.M, Ajnala To SHO, P.S. Ajnala. Subject: Regarding inquiry into the ma0er. Sir, it is hereby submi0ed that undersigned is working as Reader in the above men4oned Court. On 02.01.2004, bail bonds and surety bonds were furnished by the accused Asha Rani. The applicant/pe44oner namely Sukhraj Singh at own behest enquired about the details of surety so furnished by the accused namely Asha and it came to the pe44oner's knowledge that one Piara Singh son of Achhar Singh 1 1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 23-03-2024 17:33:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041941 CRM-M-14954-2024 2024:PHHC:041941 resident of village Chabba, Ajnala, District Amritsar, has stood as surety and has furnished the documents pertaining to his agricultural land. Upon further inquiry, when the applicant met the said Piara Singh whose property documents has been a0ached by the said surety. The said Piara Singh and applicant were shocked to find that, someone has impersonated Piara Singh and fraud has been played upon this Court in order to secure bail and this necessitated the applicant in filing the present applica4on before the Court.
The said Piara Singh has further informed the applicant that he never stood as surety for any such accused namely Asha Rani and even the photograph so affixed before the Court is not his photograph and his property related documents have been a0ached without his consent and knowledge. The applicant further enquired about the one Satnam Singh, Numberdar of the village Chabba who iden4fied impersonated surety and further shocked to know that there is no such person with the name of Satnam Singh Numberdar of village Chabba. To further clarify this fact the applicant procured the list of Numberdars from the Amritsar Administra4on and as per the list of Da;ar Revenue Kanungo of village Chabba, there is no such person existed with the name of Satnam Singh appointed as a Numberdar of village Chabba Tehsil and District Amritsar. Accused Asha Rani suffered statement separately to the effect that she do not know the surety and his phone number is switched off, his phone number is 6239919699. As per true caller his name is Sandhu Amritsar, who disclosed his name Piara Singh. He has got no phone number of the iden4fier. Affidavit given by Piara Singh son of Acchar Singh, list of Numberdars and the statement of accused, prima facie reveals that cognizable criminal offences have been commi0ed by the accused Asha Rani, surety shown as Piara Singh and one Satnam Singh by placing forged surety bonds. Therefore, I hereby file this complaint before you to inquire into ma0er and if there is commission of any offence then register FIR under relevant provision of law. Undersigned has been duly authorized and directed by the Court of MS.Manpreet Kaur, Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala vide order dated 29.1.2024 to file a complaint before Police Authority Thanking you. Sd/- Baljit Singh Reader in the Court of Ms Manpreet Kaur Ld. SDJM Ajnala. The enquiry of the above complaint was conducted by myself SI/SHO and during the course of enquiry it has been found that Sukhraj Singh son of Nirmal Singh resident of Kyaspur Police sta4on Ajnala had lent an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- to Asha Rani wife of Kushal Singh resident of Amb, Near Government Senior School, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh for star4ng a business and in order to pay 2 2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 23-03-2024 17:33:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041941 CRM-M-14954-2024 2024:PHHC:041941 back the above said borrowed amount Asha Rani had given a cheque amoun4ng to Rs. 30,00,000 (Thirty lacs) to above Sukhraj Singh which stood dishonored. So because of that above Sukhraj Singh filed a complaint under sec4on 138 of the Nego4able Instruments Act before the Court of Manpreet Kaur L.d. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala, against above Asha Rani wife of Kushal Singh resident of Amb, Near Government Senior School, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. In the above men4oned complaint case the Ld. Court of SDJM issued no4ce to Asha Rani for furnishing bail bonds 02.01.2024. So on 02.01.2024 above Asha Rani along with her son Rajan son of Kushal Singh, and daughter in law ( name not known) wife of Rajan son of Kushal Singh resident of Amb, and with some other persons came present before this Hon'ble Court and out of the above person one of the persons having disclosed his name as Piara Singh son of Acchar Singh resident of village Chabba, District Amritsar furnished his surety bonds for securing bail for Asha Rani and one another person having disclosed his name as Satnam Singh Numberdar son of Jagir Singh resident of Chabba, District Amritsar verified the surety bonds and bail bonds of the accused Asha Rani However, from my inquiry it is found that in facat Piara Singh son of Acchar Singh did not furnish the surety bonds for Asha Rani and alleged Lamberdar Satnam Singh is not found to be the resident of village Chabba. Therefore, Asha Rani and her daughter in law (name unknown) and son Rajan and two other unknown persons having connived for with each other for securing bail for accused Asha Rani and having prepared bogus documents have produced the fake persons before the Court. So the inves4ga4on is required to be inves4gated a;er registering the FIR against the above accused persons. So the copy of orders passed by the Court of Smt. Manpreet Kaur, Ld. Sub Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala, bail bonds, surety bonds, copy of affidavit of Piara Singh, photocopy of Fard Hakiyat and Fard Jamabandi for the year 2021-22, photocopy of Aadhar Card, Report from the office of Kanungo, Amritsar, showing that Satnam Singh is not the Numberdar and copy of statement are being forwarded to your goodself. If approved then a;er geEng legal opinion from the D.A. Legal sanc4on be given for registering the FIR and conduc4ng inves4ga4on.
5. State's counsel opposes the bail and submits that two unknown persons impersonated themselves to be surety and Nambardar of co-accused Asha Rani (mother of pe oner) in a complaint under Sec on 138 NI Act. He further submits that pe oner was in con nuous touch on the telephone with the impersonated surety.
3 3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 23-03-2024 17:33:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041941 CRM-M-14954-2024 2024:PHHC:041941
5-A State counsel has referred relevant por on from the FIR itself which reads as follows:
"The SHO Police sta on Ajnala has submiCed his detailed report. So from the enquiry conducted by SHO Police sta on Ajnala it has been found that Sukhraj Singh son of Nirmal Singh resident of Kyaspur Police sta on Ajnala had lent an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- to Asha Rani wife of Kushal Singh resident of Amb, Near Government Senior School, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh for star ng a business and in order to pay back the above said borrowed amount Asha Rani had given a cheque amoun ng to Rs. 30,00,000 (Thirty lacs) to above Sukhraj Singh which stood dishonored by the bank. So because of that above Sukhraj Singh filed a complaint under the 138 of the Nego able Instruments Act before the Court of Manpreet Kaur L.d. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala, against above Asha Rani wife of Kushal Singh resident of Amb, Near Government Senior School, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. In the above men oned complaint case the Ld. Court of SDJM issued no ce to Asha Rani for furnishing bail bonds for 02.01.2024. So on 02.01.2024 above Asha Rani along with her son Rajan son of Kushal Singh, and daughter in law (name not known) wife of Rajan son of Kushal Singh resident of Amb, with some other persons came present before the Hon'ble Court and out of the above person one of the persons having disclosed his name as Piara Singh son of Acchar Singh resident of village Chabba, District Amritsar executed his surety bonds for Asha Rani and one another person having disclosed his name as Satnam Singh Numberdar son of Jagir Singh resident of Chabba, District Amritsar verified the bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Asha Rani. As per the inquiry conducted by SHO Police sta on Ajnala, it was found that Piara Singh son of Acchar Singh has not executed the surety bonds for Asha Rani and alleged Lamberdar Satnam Singh was not found to be the resident of village Chabba. Therefore, Asha Rani and her daughter in law (name unknown) and son Rajan and two other unknown persons having connived with each other for securing bail to Asha Rani and having prepared bogus documents have produced fake persons(imposters) before the Court. So the maCer is required to be inves gated a=er registering the FIR against the above accused persons. So the copy of orders passed by the Court of Smt. Manpreet Kaur, Ld. Sub Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala, bail bonds, surety bonds, copy of affidavit of Piara Singh, photocopy of Fard Hakiyat and Fard Jamabandi for the year 2021-22, photocopy of Aadhar Card, Report from the office of Kanungo, Amritsar, showing that Satnam Singh is not the 4
4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 23-03-2024 17:33:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041941 CRM-M-14954-2024 2024:PHHC:041941 Numberdar and copy of statement are being forwarded to your goodself"
6. Since given the fact that the enquiry is already completed and considering the nature of allega ons against the pe oner, no formal reply is required. Given the penal provisions imposed and the sentence provided by the Legislature, the nature of allega ons coupled with the fact that the pe oner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraphs 3 to 8 of the bail pe on needs considera on for bail.
7. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Cons tu onal Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumula ve 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 en tled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecu on 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 sa sfac on for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situa ons. The rejec on of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent applica on. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing require, and a change in the fact situa on. 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 sugges ve of fleeing from jus ce or thwar ng the course of jus ce or crea ng other troubles in the shape of repea ng offences or in mida ng witnesses and the like by the pe oner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the pe oner to avoid the course of jus ce and must weigh when considering the ques on of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikan 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 nega ve criteria necessita ng that course. In Prahlad 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 considera ons. In Dataram Singh v State of UCar Pradesh, 2018:INSC:107 [Para 7], (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is en rely within the discre on of the judge hearing the maCer and though that discre on is unfeCered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, condi ons for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.
8. The possibility of the accused influencing the inves ga on, tampering with evidence, in mida ng witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing jus ce, can be taken care 5
5 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 23-03-2024 17:33:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041941 CRM-M-14954-2024 2024:PHHC:041941 of by imposing elabora ve and stringent condi ons. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92], (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Cons tu onal Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restric ve condi ons. In Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013)15 SCC 570, Para 11, Supreme Court holds that while exercising power Under Sec on 438 of the Code, the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of inves ga on of the police. While exercising utmost restraint, the Court can impose condi ons countenancing its object as permissible under the law to ensure an uninterrupted and unhampered inves ga on.
9. Considering the nature of allega ons and prima facie pe oner's role is that he was in the company of his ailing mother, it is not a case for pre-trial incarcera on. Furthermore, without commen ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men oned above, the pe oner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and condi ons, which shall be over and above and irrespec ve of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.
10. In Madhu Tanwar and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21], CRM-M-27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed, [10] The exponen al growth in technology and ar ficial intelligence has transformed iden fica on techniques remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recogni on are incredibly sophis cated and pervasive. Impersona on, as we know it tradi onally, has virtually become impossible. Thus, the remedy lies that whenever a judge or an officer believes that the accused might be a flight risk or has a history of fleeing from jus ce, then in such cases, appropriate condi ons can be inserted that all the expenditure that shall be incurred to trace them, shall be recovered from such person, and the State shall have a lien over their assets to make good the loss.
[21] In this era when the knowledge revolu on has just begun, to keep pace with exponen al and unimaginable changes the technology has brought to human lives, it is only fiUng that the dependence of the accused on surety is minimized by giving alterna ve op ons. Furthermore, there should be no insistence to provide permanent addresses when people either do not have permanent abodes or intend to re-locate.
11. Given above, provided the pe oner is not required in any other case, the pe oner shall be released on bail in the FIR cap oned above, in the following terms:
(a). Pe oner 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 sa sfac on of the concerned Inves gator/SHO, before whom the bonds 6 6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 23-03-2024 17:33:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041941 CRM-M-14954-2024 2024:PHHC:041941 are required to be furnished. When the bonds are to be furnished before a Judicial Magistrate, then in case of the non-availability of the concerned Judicial Magistrate, to any other nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep ng the surety, the concerned officer must sa sfy that if the accused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the court.
OR
(b). Pe oner to hand over to the concerned inves gator a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automa c renewal of the principal and the interest rever ng to the linked account, made in favor of the 'Chief Judicial Magistrate' of the concerned district, or blocking the aforesaid amount in favour of the concerned 'Chief Judicial Magistrate'. Said fixed deposit or blocking funds can be from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or from any of the well-established and stable private sector banks. In case the bankers are not willing to make a Fixed Deposit in such eventuality it shall be permissible for the pe oner to prepare an account payee demand dra= favouring concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for a similar amount.
(c). Such court shall have a lien over the funds un l the case's closure or discharged by subs tu on, or up to the expiry of the period men oned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the en re amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor.
(d). The pe oner is to also execute a bond for aCendance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presenta on of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declara ons made in the bail pe on and all other s pula ons, terms, and condi ons of sec on 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and of this bail order.
(e). While furnishing personal bond, the pe oner shall men on the following personal iden fica on details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number, (If available), when the aCes ng officer/court thinks appropriate or considers the accused as a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available) 7 7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 23-03-2024 17:33:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041941 CRM-M-14954-2024 2024:PHHC:041941
4. E-Mail id (If available)
12. The pe oner is directed to join the inves ga on within seven days and also as and when called by the Inves gator. The pe oner shall be in deemed custody for Sec on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The pe oner shall join the inves ga on as and when called by the Inves ga ng Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate with the inves ga on at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecu on to seek cancella on of the bail. Whenever the inves ga on occurs within the police premises, the pe oner 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.
13. The pe oner 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.
14. Pe oner to comply with their undertaking made in the bail pe on, made before this court through counsel as reflected at the beginning of this order. If the pe oner fails to comply with any of such undertakings, then on this ground alone, the bail might be canceled, and the vic m/complainant may file any such applica on for the cancella on of bail, and the State shall file the said applica on.
15. The pe oner is directed not to keep more than one prepaid SIM, i.e., one pre- paid mobile phone number, ll the conclusion of the trial; however, this restric on is only on prepaid SIMs [mobile numbers] and not on post-paid connec ons or landline numbers. The pe oner must comply with this condi on within fi=een days of release from today. The concerned DySP shall also direct all the telecom service providers to deac vate all prepaid SIM cards and prepaid mobile numbers issued to the pe oner, except the one that is men oned as the primary number/ default number linked with the AADHAAR card and further that ll the no objec on from the concerned SHO, the mobile service providers shall not issue second pre-paid SIM/ mobile number in the pe oner's name. Since, as on date, in India, there are only four prominent mobile service providers, namely BSNL, Airtel, Vodafone-Idea, and Reliance Jio, any other telecom service provider are directed to comply with the direc ons of the concerned Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police, issued in this regard and disable all prepaid mobile phone numbers issued in the name of the pe oner, except the main number/default number linked with AADHAR, by taking such informa on from the pe oner's AADHAR details or any other source, for which they shall be legally en tled by this order. This condi on shall con nue ll the comple on of the trial or closure of 8 8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 23-03-2024 17:33:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041941 CRM-M-14954-2024 2024:PHHC:041941 the case, whichever is earlier. In Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 INSC 655, [para 45], while gran ng bail under Unlawful Ac vi es (Preven on) Act, 2002, Supreme Court had directed imposi on of the similar condi on, which reads as follows, "(d) Both the appellants shall use only one Mobile Phone each, during the me they remain on bail and shall inform the Inves ga ng Officer of the NIA, their respec ve mobile numbers."
16. During the trial's pendency, if the pe oner repeats or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condi on as s pulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for cancella on of this bail. It shall further be open for any inves ga ng agency to bring it to the no ce of the Court seized of the subsequent applica on that the accused was earlier cau oned not to indulge in criminal ac vi es. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and a=er that in Sec on 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not canceled due to non-appearance or breach of condi ons.
17. The condi ons men oned above imposed by this Court are to endeavour that the accused does not repeat the offence and to give a sense of security to the vic m. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Pe on (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 condi ons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be propor onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail condi ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condi ons that would result in the depriva on of rights and liber es must be eschewed."
18. All terms of this bail order shall be explained to the applicant in a language they can comprehend by the applicant's advocate and the officer in whose presence the applicant signs personal bonds.
19. If the pe oner finds the bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be brought to the no ce of this Court for appropriate reduc on. Further, if the pe oner finds bail condi on(s) as viola ng fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situa on, then for modifica on of such term(s), the pe oner may file a reasoned applica on 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 condi on.
20. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the inves ga ng agency from further inves ga on as per law.
21. In case the Inves gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta on arraigns another sec on of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new sec on prescribes 9 9 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 23-03-2024 17:33:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041941 CRM-M-14954-2024 2024:PHHC:041941 maximum sentence which is not greater than the sec ons men oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec ons men oned above, then, in that case, the Inves gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe oner no ce of a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.
22. Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
23. In return for the protec on from incarcera on, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.
24. The SHO of the concerned police sta on or the inves ga ng officer shall arrange to send a copy of this order, preferably a so= copy, to the complainant and the vic m, without any delay. If the vic m(s) no ce any viola on of this order, they may inform the SHO of the concerned police sta on, the trial court, or even this court. Pe..on allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
22.03.2024
Jyo -II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
10
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 23-03-2024 17:33:19 :::