Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 2 February, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014869
CRM-M-20214-2023 2024:PHHC: 014869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20214-2023 (O&M)
Date of order: 02.02.2024
Anil Kumar
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent (s)
CRM-M-34649-2023 (O&M)
Anil Kumar
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent (s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:- Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Vikran Pamboo, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
***
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
4 10.09.2019 State Vigilance120-B, 218, 409, 420, 466, 467, 468,
Bureau, 471 IPC and Sections 13(1(c), 13(1)(d)
Panchkula and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
4 30.07.2019 State Vigilance 120-B, 218, 409, 420, 466, 467, 468,
Bureau, Rohtak 471 IPC and Sections 13(1(c), 13(1)(d)
and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
1. This order shall dispose of two petitions i.e. CRM-M Nos.20214 and 34649 of 2023, as same have been filed by same petitioner and common facts are involved in both the petitions. However, for brevity, facts are being noted from CRM-M-20214- 2023.
1 1 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2024 21:25:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014869 CRM-M-20214-2023 2024:PHHC: 014869
2. Apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, the petitioner, who was posted as Deputy Director, Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Class Department, Haryana and also remained posted as DDO w.e.f. 21.2.2018 to 14.4.2019, had come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking bail.
3. In paragraph 26 of the bail application, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offences Police Station 1. 4 28.05.2020 -- State Vigilance Bureau, Karnal. 2. 5 28.05.2020 -- State Vigilance Bureau, Karnal. 3. 4 30.09.2019 -- State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak.
4. Facts of the case are being taken from the reply dated 31.8.2023 filed by the State by way of concerned DySP, which read as under:-
"1. That case FIR No. 04 dated 10.09.2019 was registered in PS State Vigilance Bureau (Now Anti Corruption Bureau). Panchkula against Anil Kuma Dy Director. Scheduled Casts & Backward Class Welfare department, Haryana and others u/s 120-B, 218, 409, 420, 466, 467, 468 & 471 IPC and section 13(2), 13(1)(c) and (d) of PC Act, 1988 as a result of Enquiry No. 07. dated 10.06.2019 at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Panchkula. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the orders of Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Vigilance Department received vide endorsement No.38/08/19- 3Vig-1 dated 09.09.2019
2. That it has been alleged in the above said FIR that in year 2015-16 to 2018- 19, the District Welfare Officers in connivance with concerned educational institutions and the officer/officials appointed at Headquarter did not provide the scholarship to the deserving students in accordance with scheme of Post Matric Scholarship, meant for students of Schedules Castes and Backward Classes and instead they after Changing the Aadhaar card numbers and account numbers deposited the scholarship amount in the accounts of their known persons and thus embezzled crores of rupees of Government money.
3. That it has also been alleged in the FIR that to provide scholarship to the students of scheduled castes and backward classes for studies, Ministry of Welfare, Government of India had started the Post Matric Scholarship Scheme in July, 1981. Under the scheme, students belonging to the Scheduled Castes categories are given Rs.230/- to Rs. 1200/- per month as scholarship and in addition, all the non-refundable fee is also given. Similarly students of Backward Classes are given Rs.160/- to Rs.750/- per month as scholarship and in addition, all the non-refundable fee is also given. Since the year 2017-18, 25% of the tuition fee or Rs.5000/-, whichever is less is also given. Prior in the year 2015, this scheme was handled manually but from the year 2015- -16, this scheme is being operated online. Every student has to create username and password and apply for the scheme on the portal and has to comply with the conditions as laid down by the department. Thereafter, the application is forwarded by the student to the portal of the concerned educational institution. After scrutinizing the application by the concerned institution, the same is 2 2 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2024 21:25:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014869 CRM-M-20214-2023 2024:PHHC: 014869 forwarded on the portal of the concerned District Welfare officer. The students studying outside Haryana State after filling their forward the same on the portal of the District Welfare Officer. District Welfare Officer receiving applications from the concerned institutions and the applications received from the students studying outside Haryana after attestation forwarded these to the Director, Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Department for sanction of the scholarship to the students online along with his recommendations and the required certificate.
4. That the Training Branch of the directorate on the basis of recommendation of the concerned District Welfare Officers a case prepared on noting and approval is obtained from the Additional Chief Secretary for issuing sanctioning of the amount, thereafter the concerned Assistant prepares list of students manually or on computer in which name of students, father's name. name of course, name of institution, Aadhaar number, bank account number and year of education is written and he prepare the bill and the bills are sent through Branch Superintendent and the Deputy Director these to DDO for getting it pass, DDO after preparing the bills and after getting them passed from the Treasury as per the Excel file received from the branch prepares XML file. Atter preparation of XML file, after doing digital signatures of Drawing & Disbursing Officer, the same is sent to the bank for transfer of money into the accounts of students. The file which is sent to the Bank also contains the name of the students, Aadhaar number, amount and account number of the department from which are linked with their latest Aadhaar number. Any amount which is not linked with Aadhaar number, the draft in respect of that account is prepared and sent to the department mentioning the reason as to why the amount was not transferred. The details of drafts, which are received from the bank in the DDO Branch are sent by DDO Branch to the Training Branch in writing and request them to get rectify the objections raised by the bank in respect of those students, who did not get the amount. That the XML file is prepared and sent to the bank and amount is got to the concerned student. On which the training branch write to the concerned District Welfare Officer to get the mistakes rectified.
5. That during enquiry relating to the Panchkula district, enquiry of 363 students was done by visiting their houses and students studying outside district were called for enquiry by making calls on their mobile phone numbers and by visiting concerned institutes, out of which 77 students said that they did not received any scholarship. Out of these 77 students, 48 students said that the account number provided in the list are not of their. Thus an amount of Rs.12.15,798/- was found to have been transferred on other accounts. One student Jagtar Singh resident of Natwal, District Panchkula said that he never took admission in the Punjab Polytechnic College, Lalru Mandi, whose scholarship amount of Rs. 27,010/- was found to have been withdrawn. Analysis of concerned record/computer data was done by Knawar Singh Senior Programmer, State Vigilance Bureau and Abhishek Sanan, Senior Programmer, State Vigilance Bureau, who presented a report in which it was found that in the year 2015-16, the aAadhaar numbers of 10 students were changed in the sanctioning branch and thus and amount of Rs.21,000/- was embezzled. Likewise, Aadhaar number of one student was changed in the Accounts Branch and Rs. 2476/- was embezzled. Similarly in the year 2017- 18, the Aadhaar numbers of 20 students were changed in the Sanctioning Branch and the scholarship amount in respect of those comes to Rs.6.00,390/- but because of their Aadhaar numbers were not linked with the accounts, this amount bounced back. In the year 2015-16, the scholarship amount of 80 students, in the 3 3 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2024 21:25:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014869 CRM-M-20214-2023 2024:PHHC: 014869 year 2016-17 of 41 students and in the year 2017-18 of 77 students bouneed back because their Aadhaar cards were not linked with the back account. Thus, as detailed above, an amount of Rs. 12,66.284/- was found to be embezzled.
6. That in the district Yamuna Nagar 1939 students were enquired about the scholarship amount, out of which 261 students during enquiry said that they did not receive any scholarship amount. Out of these 261 students. 200 students said that account number mentioned in the list are not of theirs, thus an amount of Rs. 50,07,808/-in respect of these students was sent to different accounts, About one student Arun Kumar son of Dharam Singh, resident of Village Kalwaar, Police Station Chhappar, District Yamuna Nagar, the Institution Paramedic Council, Mohali, Punjab gave in writing that the above student never took admission in institute in VLDA Course, in whose account, an amount of Rs. 1,17,760/- was found to have been credited and this fact was admitted by him about receiving of the amount and he used the same. After analysing the concerned record/computer data in the submitted report, it was found that the amount in respect of 12 students in the year 2015-16, 137 students in the year 2016-17 and 280 students in the year 2017-18 bounced back because the bank account, numbers of the students were not linked with the Aadhaar numbers.
7. That as per the above details, Rs.51,25,568/- of the scholarship amount in respect of the above student was found to be embezzled. It was found that after the Post Matric Scholarship Scheme was made online, then the officers of the department called/deputed Surender Kumar, Accountant- cum-Clerk. office of District Welfare Officers. Sonepat son of Shri Rajpal, resident of Village Siwah, District Panipat from time to time Sonipat to Headquarter to work on the scheme. On the basis of recommendations of the District Welfare Officer and after approval of the Additional Chief Secretary. Welfare Department of the Scholarship amount, the XL. file was got prepared in which aAadhaar numbers of the students were used to be changed. These Aadhaar numbers were provided to Surender Kumar by Anil Kumar, Dy. Director and Balinder Singh, Assistant in Pen Drive. The aAadhaar numbers were changed by Rajinder Sangwan, Anil Kumar, Dy, Director, Balinder Singh, Assistant and Surender Singh Accountant-cum- Clerk together in Training Branch while preparing manually XL file for further preparation of the bill in the DDO Branch. After preparation of the bills by the DDO and after passing of the bill by the treasury before sending to the bank, XML file was prepared in that file also, Aadhazar nümbers were found to have been changed because amount to be transferred in those account only which were linked with Aadhaar.
8. That the petitioner Anil Kumar, Deputy Director, Rajender Singh Sangwan.
Depuuty Director presently retired, Balinder Singh, Assistant and Surender Kumar. Accountant-cum-Clerk office of District Welfare Officer, Sonipat, they after hatching criminal conspiracy to cause financial loss to the Government and to gain illegal profit used their respective Government post changed the Aadhaar number in the records and thus committed fraud and embezzled an amount of Rs. 63,91,852/-, which was to be given to the deserving students as scholarship and Arun Kumar son of Dharam Singh, resident of Village Kalwar, PS Chhapar, Distiret Yamunanagar never took admission in VLDA course as per the written statement by Para Medical Councial, Mohali, Punjab but even then he embezzled Rs. 1,17,760/-of the scholarship amount which was received by him thus, against the abovementioned persons, offences under Sections 218, 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of 1.P.C. and 13(1)(c) (d), 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 were found and instant case was registered against them.
9. That during the relevant period the petitioner Anil Kumar has remained 4 4 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2024 21:25:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014869 CRM-M-20214-2023 2024:PHHC: 014869 posted in Training as well as in Planning branch. In Planning branch he was also given responsibility of Drawing & Disbursement Office in the year 2018 It has revealed that he used to call Surender Kumar, Accountant tume and again on oral or written orders to work in Training branch. Sh. Balinder Singh, Assistant of Training branch used to give Adhar number list of fake students in pen-drive to Sh. Surender Kumar. All this changing of Aadhaar number was in the knowledge of the petitioner. In the training branch, excel file was prepared and was sent to Accounts branch where Anil Kumar was working as Dy. Director/Drawing & Disbursing Officer. Anil Kumar with the help of data operator Kuldeep Singh used to prepare bill/xml file and send the bill to treasury. After passing of bills by the treasury branch, the amount was transferred to the adhar-based account of fake as well as genuine students. Arvind Sangwan and others used to collect amount so transferred to the accounts of fake students and thereafter the amount was distributed amongst the said including Anil Kumar. Dy. Director. The said facts have been corroborated by Rajender Kumar. Dy. Director and Surender Kumar, Accountant in their confessional statements.
10. That other following other FIRs have also been found registered against Anil Kumar, Deputy Director.
(i). FIR No. 4 dated 30.7.2019 u/s 120-B, 218, 409, 420, 466, 467, 468. 471 IPC & 13(2), 13(1)(c) & (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, PS State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak.
(ii). FIR No. 5 dated 28.05.2020 u/s 120-B, 218, 409, 420, 400, 467, 468, 471 IPC & 13(2), 13(1)(c) & (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, PS. State Vigilance Bureau, Karnal.
(iii). FIR No. 4 dated 28.05.2020 u/s 120-B, 218, 409, 420, 466, 467, 468 471 IPC & 13(2), 13(1)(c) & (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. P State Vigilance Bureau, Karnal.
11. That although time period of offence of the above mentioned FIRs includin instant FIR against Anil Kumar, Dy. Director is same i.e. from 2015-16 2018- 19 but the districts of related Welfare Officers and students a different. FIR No.4 dated 30.7.2019 PS SVB Rohtak covers distict Sonepa FIR No. 5 dated 28.5.20 PS SVB Kamal covers district Jind, FIR No. dated 28.05.2020 PS SVB Karnal covers district Panipat & Karnal whi instant FIR No. 4 dated 10.9.2019 covers districts Yamunanagar an Panchkula."
5. Vide order dated 24.4.2023, a coordinate Bench of this Court, noticing the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, had granted him interim bail and the said order is continuing till date.
6. The petitioner's counsel submits that the criminal history of the petitioner pertains to allegations in same transactions for the same period but of different districts, which led to registration of three separate FIRs.
7. Vide order dated 28.8.2023, this Court had extended the interim bail, when petitioner's counsel had submitted that the petitioner would have no objection if this Court imposes any condition including declaring assets along with his spouse, while continuing the interim order. Thereafter, Mr. Rai, senior counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner has duly furnished his affidavit declaring his assets along with his wife and submitted that they would not claim any incrimination or violation of 5 5 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2024 21:25:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014869 CRM-M-20214-2023 2024:PHHC: 014869 their rights under Articles 20/21 of the Constitution of India, Indian Evidence Act or any other law in force.
8. State has opposed the petition on the ground although the petitioner has declared his assets, but they have to verify the same. On this, Mr. Rai submits that they have no objection in case the assets are verified.
9. I have heard counsel for the parties on merits and gone through the pleadings.
10. It remains undisputed that only an application form is filled by the candidates while uploading their Aadhar card and other educational certificates to the Principal of their Institute. After that, the Principal of the Institute forwards the said application(s), to the District Welfare Officer of the concerned district. After examining the application(s), it is further forwarded to the Director's office, Training Branch, who forwards the same to an Assistant, then to Branch Superintendent, then to Chief Accounts Officer, then to the Director and finally, to Additional Chief Secretary. Then the downward movement of the file starts from Additional Chief Secretary to Director, Chief Accounts Officer, Deputy Director Training, Superintendent Training, Assistant Training, Superintendent Administrative Branch, Drawing and Disbursement Officer (petitioner) and finally, to the treasury.
11. Petitioner's case is that even if he had sanctioned the amount, it had been approved prior to him by seven officers superior to him when the funds were actually released. Thus, on this ground alone, the petitioner is entitled to bail.
12. According to Mr. Rai, senior counsel for the petitioner, another ground for bail is that when the petitioner was arrested in another FIR in which he had already remained in custody for 3½ months, before releasing him, Superintendent of Police, Karnal Range had sent a communication (Annexure P-12) to all the DIGs/Superintendents of Police of Haryana qua his arrest, but the investigator of this case had not sought his custody by filing application for production warrant.
13. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner had already remained in custody for 3½ months and had demonstrated his honesty by declaring his assets on affidavit and considering the level at which the petitioner had dealt with the file, no purpose would be served by once again keeping the petitioner in custody or his pre-trial custody.
14. The petitioner was granted interim protection on 24.04.2023, and in the interregnum, there is no allegation that he had hampered the investigation, or despite being called to join the investigation, he did not appear before the investigator. Given 6 6 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2024 21:25:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014869 CRM-M-20214-2023 2024:PHHC: 014869 the above, there would be no justification to discontinue the interim protection.
15. Given the penal provisions coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for pre-trial incarceration at this stage.
16. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying 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 entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution 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 satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing require, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikanti 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 negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati 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 considerations. In Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018:INSC:107 [Para 7], (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para
6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.
17. 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. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of 7 7 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2024 21:25:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014869 CRM-M-20214-2023 2024:PHHC: 014869 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, he 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 the investigator/SHO concerned, and in case of non-
availability, to any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned officer 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, 8 8 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2024 21:25:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014869 CRM-M-20214-2023 2024:PHHC: 014869 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 the 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.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
21. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail. Whenever the investigation occurs within the police premises, the petitioner 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. 9
9 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2024 21:25:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014869 CRM-M-20214-2023 2024:PHHC: 014869
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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 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."
25. 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 10 10 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2024 21:25:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014869 CRM-M-20214-2023 2024:PHHC: 014869 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.
26. 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 a sense of security to the victim. 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."
27. 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.
28. 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, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition.
29. 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.
30. In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.
31. 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.
Petitions are allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand 11 11 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2024 21:25:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014869 CRM-M-20214-2023 2024:PHHC: 014869 disposed.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
February 02, 2024
AK
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014869
12
12 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2024 21:25:25 :::