Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh vs State Of Haryana on 20 February, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023661
1
CRM-M-2250-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-2250-2024
Reserved on: 16.02.2024
Pronounced on: 20.02.2024
Surjit Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Vimal Khatri, Advocate for
Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 360 20.08.2020 City Tohana, Distt. 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 198, 201, Fatehabad 120-B IPC and Section 12(1)(b of Passport Act 1967 and Sections 7, 8, 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Sections 66-C & 66-D of Information Technology Act 2000
1. The petitioner, incarcerated around 10 months 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 paragraph 4(iv) of the bail petition as well as custody certificate dated 08.02.2024, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offences Police Station 1 308 23.09.2020 21 of NDPS Act Goindwal Sahib, Tarn Taran 2 16 01.03.2021 15, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, Chohla Sahib, Tarn 27, 27-A, 28 & 30 of NDPS Taran Act 3 109 03.09.2022 15, 18, 21, 22, 29 of NDPS Chohla Saheb, Tarn Act 1985, Sections 25(6), Taran 25(7)(i), 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act u/s 10, 11, 1 1 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 02:26:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023661 2 CRM-M-2250-2024 12 Air Craft Act and 304 IPC 4 64 05.04.2022 21C, 25, 29 of NDPS Act STF, SAS Nagar, 1985 Mohali 5 37 25.02.2023 21, 29 of NDPS Act and 25 Sadar Tarn Taran, of Arms Act Punjab 6 210 18.04.2020 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, City Tohana 201, 120-B, IPC, 12(1)B Passport Act, Sections 7, 8, 12 of PC Act and 66C & 66D of IT Act 2000
3. Prosecution's case is being taken from reply dated 13.02.2024, filed by the concerned DySP, which reads as under:-
"3. That briefly stated facts of the case are that the present case was registered on the complaint of Inspector Jagjit Singh, Incharge Security, Fatehabad with the averments that on 21.7.2020, three passport applications form (1) Sandeep Kumar son of Sanjeev Kumar, resident of House No. 245, Ward No. 5, Prem Nagar, Near Kutia, Tohana (2) Harpreet Singh son of Ranjit Singh, resident of House No. 270, Ward no. 5, Prem Nagar, Near Kutia, Tohana and (3) Karamvir Singh son of Nirmal Singh, resident of House No. 256, Ward No. 5, Prem Nagar, Near Kutia, Tohana containing same mobile No. 75289-83071 were received in his office. On having suspicion, efforts were made to contact on the said mobile number, but the same was found to be switched off. On verification by S.H.O. Police Station, City Tohana, it revealed that the applicants mentioned in the said passport applications were not found residing at the given addresses. During enquiry, two other application forms were also found containing the same mobile No. 75289-83071 whereas 24 passport application forms were also found containing mobile No. 78892- 78084. On enquiry, the passport applicants were not found residing at the given addresses. Upon the said complaint, above-mentioned F.I.R. was registered and Special Investigating Team was constituted.
4. That during the course of investigation, SIT collected relevant record from the concerned quarters. On verification of the attached identity proofs of the passport applicants, it transpired that all the IDs annexed with the passport application forms were fake and forged. In one of the application forms, photocopy of driving license of one Anil Bhatia was annexed and his mobile number 94161-65312 was endorsed on the passport application. During investigation, it transpired that as many as 23 passports had been delivered to Anil Bhatia through Rajwinder Singh, Postman, Post Office, Tohana. So, Anil Bhatia was joined in the investigation of this case on 04.09.2020 and his complicity in getting prepared the passports after using fake identity proofs surfaced. Upon interrogation, accused Anil Bhatia suffered his disclosure statement to the effect that he had been doing the work of agent for providing passport services and came in contact with petitioner Surjit Singh and hatched conspiracy for making forged passports with the petitioner. Consequent upon the disclosure statement of co-accused Anil Bhatia, co-accused Monu Sachdeva was arrested and interrogated. During interrogation, co- accused Monu Sachdeva suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he had been a traveler agent in Delhi and had links with so many persons throughout India even with the persons desirous of seeking passports. He 2 2 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 02:26:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023661 3 CRM-M-2250-2024 had hatched conspiracy with Anil Bhatia, Pritam Singh and Jayant Singh for getting prepared passports of persons having criminal background and others who are unable to get prepared the passports. It was settled that Anil Bhatia would provide the names of aspirants for passports and he (Anil Bhatia) would get verification from the police officials (later on name of EASI Baljeet Singh and Constable Naresh Kumar surfaced) and also would tie up with the employee of Post Office, Tohana (later on name surfaced as Rajwinder Singh) for supplying the passports prepared on the fake addresses to Anil Bhatia. It was also conspired in between them that Pritam Singh would be getting issued passports without any type of hindrance from the officials of the Passport Authorities by any means. Co- accused Monu Sachdeva also disclosed that Jayant their co-accused used to edit, the fake IDs of the persons intending to seek passports and accused Monu Sachdeva used to settle the amount ranging in between Rs. 2,00000/- to 3,00000/- from the aspirants of the passports. He also disclosed the names of middlemen to be as Kulbir Singh, Debasish Chakarborty, Palwinder Singh, Deepak Puri, Rajesh @ Sonu and Amrender @ Babbu who had got applied passports for 29 aspirants as out of these, 25 passports prepared in the present case. It was also disclosed that he used to submit fake Mail IDs and dead mobile numbers at the time of submissions of passport application forms.
5. That during further investigation of the case consequent upon his disclosure statement, co-accused Monu Sachdeva got recovered Rs. 1,00000/-, three mobile phones, one car, 13 fake IDs of the 5 applicants and also got arrested his co-accused Jayant and Kulbir. During his disclosure statement, Monu Sacheva had also disclosed the names of mediators who had come in contact with him for getting prepared 25 passports of present case and had also disclosed their address and mobile numbers. He also disclosed that his mobile phones contained details of whatsapp chat and other details pertaining to talks in between him, mediators and other conspirators. In due course mobiles had been sent to CFL, Panchkula for examination of data. During the course of investigation, account statement of co-accused Monu Sachdeva had been collected from the Banks and from perusal of account statements, it transpired that there had been money transactions in between co- accused Monu Sachdeva and his co-accused Anil Bhatia, Debasish Chakarborty, Palwinder Singh, Prabhjeet @ Sheli and other co-accused, involved in the crime.
6. That at the time of arrest of Jayant co-accused (who used to edit fake IDs on the asking of co-accused Monu Sachdeva), suffered disclosure statement and got recovered Computer set, which was used for editing fake IDs, used in the present case. In due course, Computer set was also sent to CFL, Panchkula and it came to light that 53 IDs, used for seeking passports in this case had been edited by Jayant on this computer, transmitted to co-accused Monu Sacheva which had also been found contained in the mobile phones of co-accused Monu Sachdeva. Data's of fake IDs housed in computer set has been found to be tallying with the datas in the mobile phones of co-accused Monu Sachdeva as per reports of CFL, Panchkula.
7. That during investigation, it transpired that three Mail IDs have been used, while submitting passport applications. In two application forms Mail ID i.e. [email protected] belonging to co-accused Monu Sachdeva by using phone number 96430-82890 have been used 3 3 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 02:26:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023661 4 CRM-M-2250-2024 and other passport application forms two fake Mail IDs have been used by co-accused Monu Sachdeva while applying for passports of the aspirants. During investigation, it has also come on record that 29 passport forms containing two phone numbers i.e. 78892-78084 & 75289-83071 had been procured by co-accused Monu Sachdeva and had been used by him and his link with the phone numbers is fully established. From the evidence collected so far, it is established that the co-accused Monu Sachdeva is the main accused and there remained a constant telephonic conversation, whatsapp chats, bank transactions in between the co- accused Monu Sachdeva, passport aspirants, mediators, conspirators and role of the co-accused Monu Sachdeva has fully been established in getting prepared passports by using fake IDs and 25 passports have been prepared out of the 29 passports application forms in the present case. It has also come on record that on receipt of fake passports, co-accused Monu Sachdeva used to supply to the middlemen in lieu of the settled amount cash or through Bank transactions. Co- accused Monu Sachdeva also got contacted Passport Seva Kendar, Chandigarh officials namely Amrik Singh, Anil Sapra and Sukhdev Singh through Pritam Singh who used to verify the credentials of the fake passport aspirants by giving bribe. In due course, police officials and Passports office officials and postman have been arrested. In the present case, complicity of co-accused Monu Sachdeva is fully established as he after joining co-accused Kulbir Singh, Debasish Chakarborty, Palwinder Singh, Prabhjeet Singh, Gurpreet @ Prince, Deepak Puri, Arminder @ Babu, Rajesh @ Sonu Khatri has got prepared 25 passports by submitting 29 passport forms.
8. That it is worthwhile to mention here that the name of petitioner/accused was among the 29 passports applications which were submitted with fake name & address for issuance of passport. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner/accused was declared P.O. in the present case on 24.12.2021 and thereafter he has been arrested in case FIR No. 37 dated 25.03.2023, under sections 21/29 of NDPS Act and section 25 of Arms Act, P.S. Sadar Taran Taaran (Punjab) and had been produced in the present case on production warrants on 18.04.2023.
9. That after finding sufficient evidence the petitioner/accused was arrested in the present case on 18.04.2023 and in police custody he suffered his disclosure statement stating therein that, he got his fake passport prepared with address House No. 270, Ward No.2, Master Colony, Jakhal with the help of co-accused Amrit Preet Singh, Amrender Singh @ Babbu and Monu Sachdeva and had to pay 3,00,000/- for this and he had paid 1,00,000/- to Amrit Preet Singh in cash. Monu Sachdeva gave him fake Aadhar Card of fake name and address and other documents and he went to Passport Service Centre, Chandigarh on the saying of Amrit Preet on 04.08.2020. That the said Amrit Preet Singh had talked about preparing of passport of Surjit Singh with his friend Amrender Singh @ Babbu and Amrit Preet Singh took the photograph of Surjit Singh from his own mobile phone and sent to Amrender Singh @ Babbu. There were bio- metrics and other process of Surjit Singh in the passport office Chandigarh an on his coming out, Monu Sachdeva got back false Aadhar Card and other documents from him and he gave an amount of Rs. 50,000/- cash to Monu Sachdeva on the saying of Amrit Preet Singh and Amrender Singh @ Babbu. An amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was to be paid after preparation of the passport.4
4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 02:26:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023661 5 CRM-M-2250-2024
10. That it is pertinent to mention here that the fake passport of the petitioner/accused was prepared however, due to false address the passport was not delivered and the Postman returned it to the Passport Office, Chandigarh. The passport with the false address of Surjit Singh has been recovered from the Passport Officer, Chandigarh.
3. Petitioner seeks bail on the grounds of parity with similarly placed co-accused, who have the following criminal history:-
Sr. No. Particulars Other cases Custody
1 Anil Bhatia (CRM- 06 more cases including 11 months 04 days
M-37995-2021) one conviction, on bail in
02 cases and 01 sentence
suspended
2 Monu Sachdeva 05 more cases, on bail in 01 year 11 months 02
(CRM-M-24751- 04 cases days
2021
3 Jayant Singh (CRM- 03 more cases, on bail in 01 year 10 months 25
M-50432-2021) 01 case days
4 Jobanpreet Singh 09 more cases 01 year 02 months 11
(CRM-M-47906- (identically placed co- days
2022) accused)
5 Manjinder Singh @ (As per order dated 01 year 6 days
Mani (CRM-M- 06.08.2022 Sr. No.5 to 8
16464-2022) are involved in number
6 Amritpreet @ of cases 11 months 20 days
Amritpal Singh
(CRM-M-2368-
2022)
7 Kevin Sushant 09 months
(CRM-M-2228-
2022)
8 Resham Singh 01 year 04 months
(CRM-M-23934-
2021)
9 Jagpreet Singh 16 more cases 02 years 06 months
(CRM-M-459-2024)
4. Petitioner's counsel also refers to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Rakesh Kumar Singh vs. State of West Bengal in SLP (Crl.) No.10016 of 2022, to answer the criminal history.
5. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions including surrender of firearms, tracking by GPS and are also voluntarily agreeable to the condition that till the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner shall keep only one mobile number, which is mentioned in AADHAR card, if any, and within fifteen days undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The petitioner contends that the further pre- trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.
55 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 02:26:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023661 6 CRM-M-2250-2024
4. The state's counsel opposes the bail and states that considering the allegations and given the criminal past, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
5. An analysis of the above, this Court is satisfied with the pre-trial custody of around 10 months and not going into the questions of parity with co-accused and also considering the nature of allegations and the quality of evidence collected from the petitioner.
6. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.
7. While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.
8. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Thus, the previous criminal history of the petitioner is not being considered strictly at this stage as a factor for denying bail.
9. In Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, Supreme Court holds, 6 6 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 02:26:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023661 7 CRM-M-2250-2024 [28] We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.
10. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. InSushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi),2020:INSC:106 [Para 92], (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.
11. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.
12. In Madhu Tanwar. v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21], CRM-M- 27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed, [10] The exponential growth in technology and artificial intelligence has transformed identification techniques remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recognition are incredibly sophisticated and pervasive. Impersonation, as we know it traditionally, 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 justice, then in such cases, appropriate conditions 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 revolution has just begun, to keep pace with exponential and unimaginable changes the technology has brought to human lives, it is only fitting that the dependence of the accused on surety is minimized by giving alternative options. Furthermore, there should be no insistence to provide permanent addresses when people either do not have permanent abodes or intend to re-locate.
13. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, in the following terms:
77 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 02:26:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023661 8 CRM-M-2250-2024
(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 the concerned court, and in case of non-availability, to any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned officer/court must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the court.
OR
(b). Petitioner to hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automatic renewal of the principal and the interest reverting 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 petitioner to prepare an account payee demand draft favouring concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for a similar amount.
(c). Such court shall have a lien over the funds until the case's closure or discharged by substitution, or up to the expiry of the period mentioned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the entire amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor.
(d). The petitioner is to also execute a bond for attendance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presentation of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declarations made in the bail petition and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and of this bail order.
(e). While furnishing personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number, (If available), when the court attesting the bonds thinks appropriate or considers the accused as a flight risk.8
8 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 02:26:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023661 9 CRM-M-2250-2024
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
14. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from today and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offence.
15. The petitioner 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.
16. Petitioner to comply with their undertaking made in the bail petition, made before this court through counsel as reflected at the beginning of this order. If the petitioner fails to comply with any of such undertakings, then on this ground alone, the bail might be canceled, and the victim/complainant may file any such application for the cancellation of bail, and the State shall file the said application.
17. The petitioner is directed not to keep more than one prepaid SIM, i.e., one pre- paid mobile phone number, till the conclusion of the trial; however, this restriction is only on prepaid SIMs [mobile numbers] and not on post-paid connections or landline numbers. The petitioner must comply with this condition within fifteen days of release from prison. The concerned DySP shall also direct all the telecom service providers to deactivate all prepaid SIM cards and prepaid mobile numbers issued to the petitioner, except the one that is mentioned as the primary number/ default number linked with the AADHAAR card and further that till the no objection from the concerned SHO, the mobile service providers shall not issue second pre-paid SIM/ mobile number in the petitioner'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 directions of the concerned Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police, issued in this regard and disable all 9 9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 02:26:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023661 10 CRM-M-2250-2024 prepaid mobile phone numbers issued in the name of the petitioner, except the main number/default number linked with AADHAR, by taking such information from the petitioner's AADHAR details or any other source, for which they shall be legally entitled by this order. This condition shall continue till the completion of the trial or closure of the case, whichever is earlier. In Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 INSC 655, [para 45], while granting bail under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002, Supreme Court had directed imposition of the similar condition, which reads as follows, "(d) Both the appellants shall use only one Mobile Phone each, during the time they remain on bail and shall inform the Investigating Officer of the NIA, their respective mobile numbers."
18. During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condition as stipulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for cancellation of this bail. It shall further be open for any investigating agency to bring it to the notice of the Court seized of the subsequent application that the accused was earlier cautioned not to indulge in criminal activities. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and after that in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not canceled due to non-appearance or breach of conditions.
19. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this Court are to endeavour that the accused tries to reform, does not repeat the offence and to provide an opportunity to the victim to consider legal remedies for recovery of the amount. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (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 conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions, must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed."
20. Any Advocate for the petitioner and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order in any language that the petitioner understands.
21. If the petitioner finds bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, 10 10 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 02:26:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023661 11 CRM-M-2250-2024 and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition.
22. Any observation 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 protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.
24. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
Petition allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
20.02.2024
anju rani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023661
11
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 02:26:05 :::