Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sumeet Bansal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 18 April, 2023
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054016
CRM-M-10298-2023 1 2023:PHHC:054016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
213 CRM-M-10298-2023
DECIDED ON: 18.04.2023
Sumeet Bansal .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Central Bureau of Investigation ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr.Vikram Chaudhari, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Hargun Sandhu, Mr. Kunal Sharma and
Mr. Digvijay Sharma, Advocates,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajeev Anand, Standing counsel for CBI.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J (ORAL)
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections RC 216 10.01.2023 CBI/AC-I New 120-B IPC & 7,8,9,10 2023 A Delhi and 12 Prevention of 0001 Corruption Act, 1988
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, had come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Vide order dated 24.02.2023, the petitioner was granted interim protection, which is continuing till date.
3. The petitioner's counsel argued that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner. He further states on instructions that the petitioner has voluntarily complied all the conditions of the bail order.
4. The State's counsel opposes the bail.
1 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2023 20:31:12 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054016
CRM-M-10298-2023 2 2023:PHHC:054016
REASONING:
5. Thus, there would be no justification to keep this bail pending waiting for the proper investigation. The petitioner was granted interim protection, and during the interregnum, there is no allegation that he had intimidated the victim or victim's family or the witnesses or that he had hampered the investigation, or despite being called to join the investigation, he did not appear before the investigator. Given the above, there would be no justification to discontinue the interim protection, and the same is made absolute subject to the petitioner complying with the terms of the bail order.
6. In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior. It is clarified that in case the petitioner do not mend his ways and repeats the offence or indulge in criminal behaviour, then in all future matters, the concerned courts shall keep it as a factor that this court had afforded a final opportunity to the petitioner to reform and live a normal life but did not mend his ways.
7 The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavour that the accused does not repeat the offence and to ensure the safety of the witnesses, victim, and their families. 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. In Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013)15 SCC 570, Para 11, Supreme Court holds that while exercising power Under Section 438 of the Code, the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. While exercising utmost restraint, the Court can impose conditions countenancing its object as permissible under the law to ensure an uninterrupted and unhampered investigation.In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2023 20:31:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054016 CRM-M-10298-2023 3 2023:PHHC:054016 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."
8. Petition allowed in aforesaid terms. Interim order dated 24.02.2023 is made absolute subject to strict compliance of all terms and conditions. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
18.04.2023 JUDGE
mamta
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054016
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2023 20:31:13 :::