Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 March, 2016
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 187 and 188 of 2016.
.
Date of decision: 10.3.2016
1. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 187 of 2016 Pradeep Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent of
2. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 188 of 2016 Dalip Mehta ...Petitioner rt Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Satyen Vaidya, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.V.K. Verma, Ms.Meenakshi Sharma, Additional Advocate Generals with Ms.Parul Negi, Deputy Advocate General.
Mr. Gulam Akbar, SI/SHO and Mr.Ratti Ram HHC No. 837 P.S. Chopal, District Shimla present with records.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan J. (oral) The petitioners have sought regular bail in case FIR No. 14 of 2015, dated 11.3.2015 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 354, 364, 436, 452 and 506 IPC at Police Station, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P.
2. The respondents have produced the records of the investigation and have also filed the status report.
3. The record discloses that on 11.3.2015, complainant got recorded her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with ASI Partap Singh Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 2 disclosing therein that she along with her husband and three children is residing in village Tuil. At about 3.00 P.M., on 11.3.2015, she along with her .
husband was present in her house. Meanwhile, a stone was thrown on the head of her husband, upon which, the husband told her that people are pelting stones upon them, upon which the complainant along with children got into the house. Her husband also came inside the house. The people were of pelting stones on the roof of the house. They also proclaimed that if Narvir would come out, they will not spare him. Then, the accused Bantu son of rt Sunder Singh, Dalip son of Jalam Singh, Bhupinder son of Sh.Roop Singh, Pappu, Kaku son of Joban Dass, Rakesh son of Lachhi Ram, Sunil son of Sant Ram, Manu son of Beer Singh, Gulshan son of Lachhi Ram, Ritu son of Joban Dass, Joban Dass, Sanu son of Bhupinder, Rajinder son of Balak Ram, Dinesh Mehta son of Mast Ram, Manu alias Sachin son of Rajinder entered in the house. After entering the house, Bhupinder son of Sh. Roop Singh caught hold of the complainant from her hair, Rinku and Kaku caught hold of the complainant from her arms. Rajinder, Sunil and Pappu tore the clothes of the complainant and they have also proclaimed to molest her. Ritu was having stone in his hand and he inflicted injuries on the face of the complainant.
Those persons were proclaiming to the deceased Narvir that save his wife if he can. The husband of the complainant was having a gun in his hand. He tried to save the complainant, then the persons who came there inflicted Darat blow on the head of her husband. They also snatched the gun. In that process, the bullet got fired and hit Bantu son of Sh. Sunder Singh.
Thereafter, all those persons dragged the husband of the complainant out of the house along with the person who sustained the bullet injuries. Apart from the above persons, women were also present there. All of them have beaten the husband of the complainant. One Surinder Nepali had inflicted the axe blow on the husband of the complainant. They dragged the husband of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 3 complainant towards the fields. She also got recorded the names of the accused Rama Nand son of Mahi Ram, Bantu son of Rama Nand, Yashu son .
of Ram Lal, Yashu son of Gian Singh, Man Singh son of Kumbia, Prince Mohan son of Man Singh, Dimple son of Man Singh, Dimple son of Ishri Nand, Virender son of Sh. Roshan Lal, Devinder son of Roshan Lal, Inder Singh son of Sh.Roshan Lal, Pankaj son of Daulat Ram, Sanjay son of Daulat of Ram, Ravi son of Mangat Ram, Vishal son of Sandeep, Sandeep son of Sh.
Sohan Singh, Nikhil son of Sh. Sandeep, Pinku son of Bhindru, Kundan Singh rt son of Jalam Singh, Vir Singh son of Sh. Mehar Singh, Sunder Singh son of Sh. Mehar Singh. She further recorded that when her husband was dragged by the above persons, then after sometime, the accused Daleep, Pradeep, Bhupinder, Surinder Nepali, Sunil, Manoj, Rajinder came to the house of the complainant and told her that they had killed her husband and had thrown his dead body in the rivulet. They have also proclaimed that they will burn the complainant as well as her children. They also sprinkled kerosene oil on the grass and wood lying on the rear side of the house and set the same on fire.
On all these allegations the complainant prayed that action be taken against them.
4. On the basis of the said statement of the complainant, the police machinery swung into motion and registered F.I.R. No.14 of 2015 under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 452, 364, 436, 354, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The police searched for Narvir Thakur on 11/12.3.2015, but he was not found. On 12.3.2015, the spot was videographed. The other codal formalities were completed on the spot. On 12.3.2015, the dead body of Narvir was found in the jungle. The dead body was taken into possession and the same was sent for postmortem examination. On 16.3.2015 some of the bail applicants surrendered before the police. They were arrested and were ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 4 medico legally examined. During the course of investigation on 19.3.2015, the accused Kundan Singh and Dalip Singh made a statement under Section 27 .
of the Indian Evidence Act and Kundan Singh got recovered the axe and Dalip Singh got recovered the clothes which he had worn at the time of incident.
6. The law with regard to grant of bail is now well settled. As early as in the year 1978, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh versus of State (Delhi Administration) (1978) 1 SCC 118 laid the following criteria for grant of bail:
rt "22. In other non-bailable cases the Court will exercise its judicial discretion in favour of granting bail subject to subsection (3) of Section 437 Cr.P.C if it deems necessary to act under it. Unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court which may defeat proper investigation and a fair trial, the Court will not decline to grant bail to a person w ho is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is also clear that when an accused is brought before the Court of a Magistrate with the allegation against him of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he has ordinarily no option in the matter but to refuse bail subject, however, to the first proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC and in a case where the Magistrate entertains a reasonable belief on the materials that the accused has not been guilty of such an offence. This will, however, be an extraordinary occasion since there will be some materials at the stage of initial arrest, for the accusation or for strong suspicion of commission by the person of such an offence.
******
24. Section 439(1) CrPC of the new Code, on the other hand, confers special powers on the High Court or the Court of Session in respect of bail. Unlike under Section 437(1) there is no ban imposed under Section 439(1), CrPC against granting of bail by the High Court or the Court of Session to persons accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is, however, legitimate to suppose that the High Court or the Court of Session will be approached by an accused only after he has failed before the Magistrate and after the investigation has progressed throwing light on the evidence and circumstances implicating the accused. Even so, the High Court or the Court of Session will have to exercise its judicial discretion in considering the question of granting of bail under Section 439(1) CrPC of the new Code. The overriding considerations in granting bail to which we adverted to earlier and which are common both in the case of Section 437(1) and Section 439(1) CrPC of the new Code are the nature and gravity of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 5 circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood, of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising .
his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out."
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus of Ashis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail:
rt
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground that the accused had committed the offence;
to believe
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behavior, means, posit ion and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
8. In a detailed judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694, while relying upon its decision rendered by its Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, laid down the following parameters for grant of bail:-
"111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia's case (supra) that the High Court or the Court of Sessions to exercise their jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 6 event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour.
112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration .
while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
of
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.
rt
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable e apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
113.Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 7114.These are some of the factors which should be taken into consideration while deciding the anticipatory bail applications. These factors are by no means exhaustive but they are only .
illustrative in nature because it is difficult to clearly visualize all situations and circumstances in which a person may pray for anticipatory bail. If a wise discretion is exercised by the Judge concerned, after consideration of entire material on record then most of the grievances in favour of grant of or refusal of bail will be taken care of. The legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the of power to exercise this jurisdiction only to the judges of the superior courts. In consonance with the legislative intent ion we should accept the fact that the discretion would be properly rtexercised. In any event, the option of approaching the superior court against the court of Sessions or the High Court is always available."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. In Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following pertinent observations in paras 21, 22, 23, and 40 as under:-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times t hat the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, `necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 8 conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail .
to an un -convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court.
The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the of community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the rt Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required."
10. Learned Additional Advocate General would then contend that the petitioner is accused of a serious offence.
11. Seriousness of the allegations or the availability of the material in support thereof is not only the considerations for declining the bail. After-all, at the pre-conviction stage, there is presumption of innocence. That apart, the object of keeping a person in custody is only to ensure his availability to face the trial and receive the sentence that may be passed. This was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment in Dr.Vinod Bhandari versus State of Madhya Pradesh 2015 AIR SCW 1052, wherein it was held:-
"12. It is well settled that at pre-conviction stage, there is presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of the allegation or the availability of material in support thereof are not the only considerations for declining bail. Delay in commencement and conclusion of trial is a factor to be taken into account and the accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period if trial is not likely to be concluded within reasonable time. Reference may be made to decisions of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 2 SCC 42:(AIR 2005 SC 921), State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21: (AIR 2005 SC 3490), ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 9 State of Kerala vs. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784: (AIR 2011 SC 340) and Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI(2012) 1 SCC 40 :(AIR 2012 SC 830)..
.
13. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (AIR 2005 SC 921) (supra), it was observed:
"8. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged of on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the rt court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so. In that process a person whose application for enlargement on bail is once rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail if there is a change in the fact situation. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing require that such persons be released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the courts can do so."
14. In Amarmani Tripathi (AIR 2005 SC 3490) (supra), it was observed:
18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail [see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi[(2001) 4 SCC 280] and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC 118]. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7 SCC 528]: (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11): (at Page 1871 of AIR) "11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 10(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or .
apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC
338.)"
22. While a detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question of bail, to ensure that there is no of prejudging and no prejudice, a brief examination to be satisfied about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case is necessary. An examination of the material in this case, set out above, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, disclose prima facie, the existence of a conspiracy to which Amarmani and Madhumani were parties. The contentions of the respondents that the confessional statement of rt Rohit Chaturvedi is inadmissible in evidence and that that [pic]should be excluded from consideration, for the purpose of bail is untenable. This Court had negatived a somewhat similar contention in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar thus: (SCC p. 538, para 19) (at Page 1873 of AIR) "19. The next argument of learned counsel for the respondent is that prima facie the prosecution has failed to produce any material to implicate the respondent in the crime of conspiracy. In this regard he submitted that most of the witnesses have already turned hostile. The only other evidence available to the prosecution to connect the respondent with the crime is an alleged confession of the co-
accused which according to the learned counsel was inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, he contends that the High Court was justified in granting bail since the prosecution has failed to establish even a prima facie case against the respondent. From the High Court order we do not find this as a ground for granting bail. Be that as it may, we think that this argument is too premature for us to accept. The admissibility or otherwise of the confessional statement and the effect of the evidence already adduced by the prosecution and the merit of the evidence that may be adduced hereinafter including that of the witnesses sought to be recalled are all matters to be considered at the stage of the trial."
15. In Raneef (AIR 2011 SC 340) (supra), it was observed:
"15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille."
16. In Sanjay Chandra (AIR 2012 SC 830) (supra), it was observed:
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 11"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must .
be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
24. In the instant case, we have already noticed that the "pointing finger of accusation" against the appellants is "the seriousness of the charge". The offences alleged are economic offences which have resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they contend that of there is a possibility of the appellants tampering with the witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor: the other factor that also requires to be taken rt note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the constitutional rights but rather "recalibrating the scales of justice."
12. The matter regarding the parameters to be followed with respect to grant of bail came up for consideration yet again in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat & another JT 2015 (8) SC 125, wherein it was held that the object of bail is to secure attendance of the accused at the time of trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
The Court has also to consider whether there is any possibility of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses etc. Once these tests are satisfied, bail should be granted to an undertrial which is also important as viewed from another angle, namely, an accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he was in custody. Thus, grant or non-grant of bail depends upon a variety of circumstances and the cumulative effect thereof enters into judicial verdict. Any single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 19 to 23 of the judgment, which read thus:-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 12"19. Before we proceed further, we would like to discuss the law relating to grant of anticipatory bail as has been developed through judicial interpretative process. A judgment which needs to be pointed out is a .
Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab[1]. The Constitution Bench in this case emphasized that provision of anticipatory bail enshrined in Section 438 of the Code is conceptualised under Article 21 of the Constitution which relates to personal liberty. Therefore, such a provision calls for liberal interpretation of Section 438 of the Code in light of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Code of explains that an anticipatory bail is a pre- arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in respect of which the direction is issued, he shall be released on bail. The distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of rt anticipatory bail is that whereas the former is granted after arrest and therefore means release from the custody of the police, the latter is granted in anticipation of arrest and is therefore, effective at the very moment of arrest. A direction under Section 438 is therefore intended to confer conditional immunity from the 'touch' or confinement contemplated by Section 46 of the Code. The essence of this provision is brought out in the following manner:
"26. We find a great deal of substance in Mr Tarkundes submission that since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438, especially when no such restrictions have been imposed by the legislature in the terms of that section.
Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of the individual, who is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence since he is not, on the date of his application for anticipatory bail, convicted of the offence in respect of which he seeks bail. An over-generous infusion of constraints and conditions which are not to be found in Section 438 can make its provisions constitutionally vulnerable since the right to personal freedom cannot be made to depend on compliance with unreasonable restrictions. The beneficent provision contained in Section 438 must be saved, not jettisoned. No doubt can linger after the decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, that in order to meet the challenge of Article 21 of the Constitution, the procedure established by law for depriving a person of his liberty must be fair, just and reasonable. Section 438, in the form in which it is conceived by the legislature, is open to no exception on the ground that it prescribes a procedure which is unjust or unfair. We ought, at all costs, to avoid throwing it open to a Constitutional challenge by reading words in it which are not to be found therein".::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 13
20. Though the Court observed that the principles which govern the grant of ordinary bail may not furnish an exact parallel to the right to anticipatory .
bail, still such principles have to be kept in mind, namely, the object of bail which is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. The Court has also to consider whether there is any possibility of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses etc. Once these tests are satisfied, of bail should be granted to an undertrial which is also important as viewed from another angle, namely, an accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he rt were in custody. Thus, grant or non-grant of bail depends upon a variety of circumstances and the cumulative effect thereof enters into judicial verdict.
The Court stresses that any single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail. After clarifying this position, the Court discussed the inferences of anticipatory bail in the following manner:
"31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicants presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and the larger interests of the public or the State are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 3 SCR 622 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 216, which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 14 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the .
egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail."
21. It is pertinent to note that while interpreting the expression may, if it thinks of fit occurring in Section 438(1) of the Code, the Court pointed out that it gives discretion to the Court to exercise the power in a particular case or not, and once such a discretion is there merely because the accused is charged with rt a serious offence may not by itself be the reason to refuse the grant of anticipatory bail if the circumstances are otherwise justified. At the same time, it is also the obligation of the applicant to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. But that would not mean that he has to make out a special case. The Court also remarked that a wise exercise of judicial power inevitably takes care of the evil consequences which are likely to flow out of its intemperate use.
22. Another case to which we would like to refer is the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others[2]. This case lays down an exhaustive commentary of Section 438 of the Code covering, in an erudite fashion, almost all the aspects and in the process relies upon the aforesaid Constitution Bench judgment in Gurbaksh Singh's case. In the very first para, the Court highlighted the conflicting interests which are to be balanced while taking a decision as to whether bail is to be granted or not, as is clear from the following observations:
"1. Leave granted. This appeal involves issues of great public importance pertaining to the importance of individual's personal liberty and the society's interest. Society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail because every criminal offence is the offence against the State. The order granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect balance between the conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and the interest of the society. The law of bails dovetails two conflicting interests, namely, on the one hand, the requirements of shielding society from the hazards of those committing crimes and potentiality of repeating the same crime while on bail and on the other hand, absolute adherence to the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty and the sanctity of individual liberty."::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 15
23. The principles which can be culled out, for the purposes of the instant case, can be stated as under:
.
(i) The complaint filed against the accused needs to be thoroughly examined, including the aspect whether the complainant has filed a false or frivolous complaint on earlier occasion. The court should also examine the fact whether there is any family dispute between the accused and the complainant and the complainant must be clearly told that if the complaint is found to be false or frivolous, then strict of action will be taken against him in accordance with law. If the connivance between the complainant and the investigating officer is established then action be taken against the investigating officer in rt accordance with law.
(ii) The gravity of charge and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended. Before arrest, the arresting officer must record the valid reasons which have led to the arrest of the accused in the case diary. In exceptional cases, the reasons could be recorded immediately after the arrest, so that while dealing with the bail application, the remarks and observations of the arresting officer can also be properly evaluated by the court.
(iii) It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion to grant bail must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. In cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined the investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post-conviction stage.
(iv) There is no justification for reading into Section 438 CrPC the limitations mentioned in Section 437 CrPC. The plentitude of Section 438 must be given its full play. There is no requirement that the accused must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. This virtually, reduces the salutary power conferred by Section 438 CrPC to a dead letter. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints and conditions on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may deem ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 16 fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail.
(v) The proper course of action on an application for anticipatory bail .
ought to be that after evaluating the averments and accusations available on the record if the court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail then an interim bail be granted and notice be issued to the Public Prosecutor. After hearing the Public Prosecutor the court may either reject the anticipatory bail application or confirm the initial order of granting bail. The court would certainly be entitled to impose of conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Public Prosecutor or the complainant would be at liberty to move the same court for cancellation or modifying the conditions of anticipatory bail at any rt time if liberty granted by the court is misused. The anticipatory bail granted by the court should ordinarily be continued till the trial of the case.
(vi) It is a settled legal position that the court which grants the bail also has the power to cancel it. The discretion of grant or cancellation of bail can be exercised either at the instance of the accused, the Public Prosecutor or the complainant, on finding new material or circumstances at any point of time.
(vii) In pursuance of the order of the Court of Session or the High Court, once the accused is released on anticipatory bail by the trial court, then it would be unreasonable to compel the accused to surrender before the trial court and again apply for regular bail.
(viii) Discretion vested in the court in all matters should be exercised with care and circumspection depending upon the facts and circumstances justifying its exercise. Similarly, the discretion vested with the court under Section 438 CrPC should also be exercised with caution and prudence. It is unnecessary to travel beyond it and subject the wide power and discretion conferred by the legislature to a rigorous code of self-imposed limitations.
(ix) No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with legislative intention, the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
(x) We shall also reproduce para 112 of the judgment wherein the Court delineated the following factors and parameters that need to be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 17(a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest .
is made;
(b) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(d) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar of or other offences;
(e) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him rt or her;
(f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;
(g) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution, because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(h) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(i) The Court should consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused in entitled to an order of bail."
13. What would emerge from the conspectus of the aforesaid case law is that at the pre-conviction stage, there is a presumption of innocence.
The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 18 the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of allegation or .
availability of material in support thereof are not the only considerations for declining bail. Another factor which has to be borne in mind is the delay in commencement and conclusion of trial, after all the accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period, that too at the pre-conviction stage, if the trial is of not likely to be concluded within a reasonable time.
14. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it would be noticed that rt the alleged occurrence took place on 11th March, 2015 and the petitioners are in custody since 26th May, 2015 and 16th March, 2015 respectively. That apart, even the trial is yet to be commenced, as even the charges have not been framed. Moreover, it is not even the case of the prosecution that in the event of the petitioners being released on bail, they would tamper with the prosecution witnesses or would not make themselves available for trial.
15. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 14 of 2015, dated 11.3.2015 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 354, 364, 436, 452 and 506 IPC at Police Station, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., however, subject to the following stringent conditions:-
(i) Since the petitioners are lodged in Kaithu Jail, Shimla, therefore, they shall be released on bail, if not required to be detained in any other case on executing bail bonds in the sum of `1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) each with two sureties each to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate Ist Class stationed at Shimla, District Shimla out of whom one of the surety shall be the father/mother/brother/close relative of the petitioners;
(ii) The petitioners shall surrender their pass-ports, if any, before the learned trial Magistrate, while executing the bail bonds;::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP 19
(iii) The petitioners shall not get involved in any offence during the period of their bail;
(iv) The petitioners shall not until and otherwise ordered except .
with the permission of the learned trial Magistrate leave the territory of Himachal Pradesh;
(v) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;
of
(vi) They shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or rt the Police Officer;
(vii) In case any of the above condition is violated, the bail granted hereby is liable to be cancelled for which the Investigating Officer may move an application before the Jurisdictional Magistrate/Principal Sessions Judge for cancellation of bail granted hereby as held in P.K. Shaji Vs. State of Kerala AIR 2006 SC 100.
16. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.
17. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.
Petitions stand disposed of.
Copy Dasti.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge.
10th March, 2016 (KRS) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:53:35 :::HCHP