Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 11 April, 2023
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050035
CRM-M-6565-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-6565-2023
Reserved on: 22.03.2023
Pronounced on: 11.04.2023
Satbir Singh ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate,
for the pe oner.
Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta0on Sec0ons 358 08.09.2018 Sadar Fatehabad, 406, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B, 34 IPC District Fatehabad and Sec ons 4, 5, 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circula on Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Sec on 3 (2) of Haryana Protec on of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013
1. The pe oner, incarcera ng upon his arrest in the FIR cap oned above, has come up before this Court under Sec on 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail.
2. As per paragraph 12 of the pe on, the accused has following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Dated/Year Offences Police
Sta0on
1. 552 2019 120-B, 384, 406, 420 IPC Partapgarh,
District
Partapgarh
(Raj.)
2. 518 10.09.2018 120-B, 34, 406, 420, 406 IPC and City
Sec ons 4, 5, 6 of Prize Chits and Fatehabad,
Money Circula on Scheme District
(Banning) Act Fatehabad
3. 710 2018 420 IPC and Sec ons 4, 5, 6 of Prize --
Chits and Money Circula on
Scheme (Banning) Act
1
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2023 23:21:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050035
CRM-M-6565-2023
3. Pe oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi ons. The pe oner contends that the pre-trial incarcera on would cause an irreversible injus ce to the pe oner and family.
4. While opposing the bail, the State contends that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.
REASONING:
5. 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 siDng Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquiFal 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 jurisdic on of the Court etc.
6. In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed, While considering each bail pe on of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the an thesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Informa on Reports, wherein the bail pe oner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecu ons resul ng in acquiFal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecu on stands withdrawn, or prosecu on 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.
7. The allega ons are of duping people by promising them exorbitant returns on investments and then fleeing away with their money. The allega ons are heinous, but the offence occurred due to a lack of government safeguards in the non-banking sector and a lack of apt regula ons. Evil people are always on the hunt to grab these shorLalls. The illegal chit fund companies and Non-Banking Financial Companies mushroomed under the eyes of law enforcement agencies and the concerned government agencies and authori es, which did not take any mely ac ons against such scamsters, resul ng in massive loss of people's wealth. The loss to the people is massive, but the pe oner cannot be kept in pre-trial custody for an unlimited period.
22 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2023 23:21:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050035 CRM-M-6565-2023
8. As per paragraph 6 of the pe on, the pe oner is in custody since 21.03.2019, i.e. about 4 years. Given the pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allega ons, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus fiability further pre-trial incarcera on at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and condi ons men oned in this order. Thus, the previous criminal history of the pe oner is not being considered strictly at this stage as a factor for denying bail.
9. 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 requires, 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 UFar Pradesh, (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 maFer and though that discre on is unfeFered, 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.
10. 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 of by imposing elabora ve and stringent condi ons. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, 3 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2023 23:21:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050035 CRM-M-6565-2023 Para 92, the Cons tu onal Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restric ve condi ons.
11. 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.
12. 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 pragma c approach is that while gran ng bail with sure es, the "Court" and the "Arres ng Officer" should 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 crea ng a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further op on to switch between the modes. The op on lies with the accused to choose between the sure es and deposits and not with the Court or the arres ng officer.
13. 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 court, and in case of non-availability, any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep ng the surety, the concerned court 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 court 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. Said 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 pe oner's account.
(c). Such court shall have a lien over the deposit 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). It shall be the total discre on of the pe oner to choose between surety bond and fixed deposit. It shall also be open for the pe oner to apply to the Inves gator or the concerned court to subs tute the fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa.
(e). On the reverse page of personal bond, the pe oner shall men on her/his permanent address along with the phone number, preferably that number which is linked with the AADHAR, and e-mail (if any). In case of any change in the above 4 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2023 23:21:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050035 CRM-M-6565-2023 par culars, the pe oner shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modifica on, in mate about the change to the concerned police sta on and the concerned court.
(f). The pe oner is to also execute a bond for aFendance 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 also of this bail order.
14. 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.
15. Within fi[een days from release from the prison, the pe oners shall forward to the Inves gator/SHO and the complainant/vic m(s) the complete details of bank account numbers with addresses, fixed deposits, DEMAT account numbers, the current market value of jewelry, sovereign metals, all precious ar cles, held either individually or jointly, and cash-in-hand. If the pe oner fails to comply with this condi on, then on this ground alone, in that case, the bail might be cancelled, and the complainant may file any such applica on for the cancella on of bail, and State shall file the said applica on.
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 tries to reform, does not repeat the offence and to provide an opportunity to the vic m to consider legal remedies for recovery of the amount. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 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 5 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2023 23:21:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050035 CRM-M-6565-2023 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." In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 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. Any Advocate for the pe oner and the Officer in whose presence the pe oner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all condi ons of this bail order in any language that the pe oner understands.
19. If the pe oner finds 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 maximum sentence which is not greater than what is prescribed for 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.
66 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2023 23:21:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050035 CRM-M-6565-2023
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.
25. There would be no need for a cer fied copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a est it to be a true copy. In case the a es ng officer wants to verify the authen city, such an officer can also verify its authen city and may download and use the downloaded copy for a es ng bonds.
Pe00on allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
11.04.2023
Jyo -II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050035
7
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2023 23:21:16 :::