Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rohit Puri vs State Of Ut Chandigarh on 14 January, 2022
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-60-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-60-2022
Reserved on 12.01.2022
Pronounced on 14.01.2022
Rohit Puri ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl.P.P., U.T., Chandigarh
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
198 09.12.2020 Central, Sector 397, 307, 511 IPC and
17, UT, sections 25/27/54/59 of
Chandigarh Arms Act, 1959 and
section 120-B added later
on.
1. The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, came up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail.
2. In Para 18 of the bail application, the petitioner declares no criminal history.
2.a The brief facts of the case are that on 09.12.2020, the police recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. in which he stated that he runs a gold testing unit in Sector 23C, Chandigarh. On 09.12.2020 at about 2:15 PM, petitioner-Rohit Puri, who is known to his brother and works as a goldsmith in Sector 15, made a phone call that his companions wants to get some metal tested. They stated that they were coming around 3:00 P.M. Subsequently, petitioner alongwith three other persons reached his testing shop. While they were interacting, one of his companions raised a pistol and another handed over a bag and asked to put 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2022 01:07:33 ::: CRM-M-60-2022 2 all articles in the bag. When the complainant party raised protest, then one of Rohit's companion shot bullet which hit against left side back below the shoulder of the brother of the complainant. After that they ran away from the spot. Based on this, the police registered the FIR as mentioned above.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.
4. Learned State counsel strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. He submits that if the Court is inclined to grant concession of regular bail to the petitioner that should be on stringent conditions.
REASONING:
5. The prosecution does not attribute the firing upon petitioner. After firing, when the accused allegedly flea, the petitioner was not found in their company and out of those three accused, one was shot and killed by another. The State has not presented any substantial argument that the accused was in the company of other three when, one of them was killed by other two. This distinguishes the role and participation of the accused from the other accused. Coupled with this, a reference to Para 9 to 12 of the petition primafacie makes out a case for bail.
6. During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats this offence or commits any offence under NDPS Act, Arms Act, or where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condition as stipulated in this order, then State should consider applying 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 continue to remain in force throughout the trial and after that in terms of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
7. 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 @ 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2022 01:07:33 ::: CRM-M-60-2022 3 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 requires, 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) 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.
8. 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, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.
3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2022 01:07:33 ::: CRM-M-60-2022 4
9. The petitioner is a first offender and thus deserves an opportunity to course correct.
10. 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.
11. Provided the accused is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR mentioned above, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-), and shall furnish one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the satisfaction of the concerned Court/ Judicial Magistrate having the jurisdiction over the Police Station conducting the investigation, and in case of non-availability, any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the sureties, the concerned Court must satisfy that in case the petitioners-accused fail to appear in Court, then such sureties are capable to produce the petitioners- accused before the Court, keeping in mind the Jurisprudence behind the sureties, which is to secure the presence of the accused.
12. The furnishing of the personal bonds shall be deemed acceptance of the following and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order.
13. On the reverse page of personal bonds, the attesting officer shall mention the permanent address of the petitioner along with the phone number linked with the AADHAR card, the other phone numbers (if any), and e-mail (if any). In case of any change in the above particulars, the petitioner shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modification, intimate about the change to the concerned Police Station and the concerned Court.
14. The petitioner 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 following and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order.
4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2022 01:07:33 ::: CRM-M-60-2022 5
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. Till the completion of the trial, the petitioner shall not contact, call, text, message, remark, stare, stalk, make any gestures or express any unusual or inappropriate, verbal or otherwise objectionable behavior towards the victim and victim's family, either physically, or through phone call or any other social media, through any other mode, nor shall unnecessarily roam around the victim's home.
17. Given the nature of 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 10 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.
18. 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.
19. In case the petitioner finds the 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.
20. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law.
21. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes maximum sentence which is not greater than the 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2022 01:07:33 ::: CRM-M-60-2022 6 sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above, then in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.
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. This bail is subject to the petitioner joining investigation and fully cooperating with the investigating agencies. Failure to do so shall ipso facto result in its withdrawal.
25. 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
January 14, 2022
sonia arora
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2022 01:07:33 :::