Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mandeep Singh vs Union Territory Of J&K & Others on 13 December, 2024
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
(Virtual Mode)
Bail App.209/2023
Reserved on: 05.12.2024
Pronounced on: 13.12.2024
Mandeep Singh ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Manpreet Kour, Advocate.
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K & Others. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr.AAG with
Ms. Chetna Manhas, Assisting Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE.
ORDER
1. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in anticipation of his arrest in case FIR No.06/2023 of Police Station Crime Branch, Jammu, registered for the commission of offences punishable in terms of Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, inter alia on the grounds that he is an old, infirm and ailing person suffering with life consuming disease; that he is a Government employee working in the Agriculture Department; that he is a respectable citizen having deep roots in the society and has been falsely implicated in the above said case; that he is innocent and is ready to cooperate with the investigation as and when required and that he is ready to comply with the conditions as may be imposed by this Court in case of being granted bail.
2. The bail application of the applicant has been resisted by the respondents by filing objections to the application in hand stating therein that the applicant is involved in a forgery and with tempering of records; he has committed a non-bailable offence and does not deserve to be given the Bail App.209/2023 Page 1 of 5 concession of bail; the applicant will flee from justice in case the application of the applicant is allowed.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material made available.
4. The applicant was given an interim anticipatory bail by this Court in terms of order dated 18.08.2023 subject to certain conditions as contained in the order.
5. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that till date investigation has not completed and no charge sheet has been filed by the respondents, therefore, the interim concession granted in terms of order dated 18.08.2023 deserves to be made absolute. While making submissions, in support of the application, the learned Sr. counsel referred to and relied upon the case law laid down in cases titled; i) Ravinder Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (1) of SCC 684; ii) Sumit Mehta Vs State of NCT of Delhi (SC); iii) Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020(2) SCC Page 1; iv) Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2022 IV SC 274; v) Gurbaksh Singh Sibba Vs. State of Punjab 1980 (2)SCC 565.
6. The applicant, as stated by Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG, has been very cooperative with the Investigating Agency during the period of anticipatory bail.
7. The Apex Court very recently in case titled Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020(2) SCC Page 1 has laid down certain parameters while dealing with anticipatory bail applications. Relevant portion of Paragraph no. 1 of the conclusion of the said case, is taken note of herein, thus:
"This court, in the light of the above discussion in the two judgments, and in the light of the answers to the reference, hereby clarifies that the following need to be kept in mind by courts, dealing with applications under Section 438, Cr. PC:Bail App.209/2023 Page 2 of 5
(1) Consistent with the judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab 54, when a person complains of apprehension of arrest and approaches for order, the application should be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to one or other specific offence. The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his 1980 (2) SCC 565 side of the story. These are essential for the court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.
(2) It may be advisable for the court, which is approached with an application under Section 438, depending on the seriousness of the threat (of arrest) to issue notice to the public prosecutor and obtain facts, even while granting limited interim anticipatory bail.
(3) Nothing in Section 438 Cr. PC, compels or obliges courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of statement of any witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc. While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc. The courts would be justified - and ought to impose conditions spelt out in Section 437 (3), Cr. PC [by virtue of Section 438 (2)]. The need to impose other restrictive conditions, would have to be judged on a case by case basis, and depending upon the materials produced by the state or the investigating agency. Such special or other restrictive conditions may be imposed if the case or cases warrant, but should not be imposed in a routine manner, in all cases.
Likewise, conditions which limit the grant of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they are required in the facts of any case or cases; however, such limiting conditions may not be invariably imposed.
(4) Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court.
Bail App.209/2023 Page 3 of 5(5) Anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.
(6) An order of anticipatory bail should not be "blanket" in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest. It should be confined to the offence or incident, for which apprehension of arrest is sought, in relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in respect of a future incident that involves commission of an offence.
(7) An order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency, to investigate into the charges against the person who seeks and is granted prearrest bail.
(8) The observations in Sibbia regarding "limited custody" or "deemed custody" to facilitate the requirements of the investigative authority, would be sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling the provisions of Section 27, in the event of recovery of an article, or discovery of a fact, which is relatable to a statement made during such event (i.e deemed custody). In such event, there is no question (or necessity) of asking the accused to separately surrender and seek regular bail. Sibbia (supra) had observed that "if and when the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released on bail by invoking the principle stated by this Court in State of U.P. v Deoman Upadhyaya." (9) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the court concerned, which grants anticipatory bail, for a direction under Section 439 (2) to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc. (10) The court referred to in para (9) above is the court which grants anticipatory bail, in the first instance, according to prevailing authorities."
8. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sushila supra coupled with the fact that the applicant is on anticipatory bail for over a period of one year by now and as per the statement made by Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG, his conduct during interim bail period has remained satisfactory as he has cooperated with the investigating agency and has not violated any of the conditions imposed by this court while granting such anticipatory bail, the interim anticipatory bail granted in terms of order dated 18.08.2023 deserves to be made absolute. Moreso, Bail App.209/2023 Page 4 of 5 for the reason that the respondents have not yet filed any charge-sheet in the matter despite having registered the case for over a period of one year.
9. The interim anticipatory bail dated 18.08.2023, in the circumstances, is made absolute on the same conditions as contained therein the said order. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that violation of any of the conditions incorporated in the order dated 18.08.2023 shall entail cancellation of the bail and respondents would be at liberty to move a motion in that behalf.
10.Disposed of.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE SRINAGAR:
13.12.2024 "Shaista-PS"Bail App.209/2023 Page 5 of 5