Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bisan @ Vishan Pal Singh vs State Of Haryana on 12 April, 2023

Author: Anoop Chitkara

Bench: Anoop Chitkara

                                                              Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050921



                                                                        2023:PHHC:050921
CRM-M-46740-2022                                                                                      1

222            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                            AT CHANDIGARH


                                                     CRM-M-46740-2022
                                                     Date of decision: 12.04.2023

Bisan @ Vishan Pal Singh                             ...Petitioner

                                      Versus

State of Haryana                                     ...Respondent


CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:       Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate for the petitioner

               Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.


                                      ****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
 FIR No.         Dated              Police Station        Sections
 78              12.02.2022         City Palwal, District 420, 406 and 120-B IPC
                                    Palwal

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 12.10.2022, 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.

REASONING:

5. Thus, there would be no justification to keep this bail pending waiting for the proper investigation. The petitioner were 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 1 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 18-04-2023 22:13:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050921 2023:PHHC:050921 CRM-M-46740-2022 2 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 lifebut 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 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."

Petition allowed in aforesaid terms. Interim order dated 12.10.2022 is made absolute subject to strict compliance of all terms and conditions. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.



                                                     (ANOOP CHITKARA)
                                                            JUDGE
12.04.2023
sonia arora


Whether speaking/reasoned:            Yes
Whether reportable:                   No.




                                                 2
                                        2 of 3
                  ::: Downloaded on - 18-04-2023 22:13:14 :::
                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050921



                                                              2023:PHHC:050921
CRM-M-46740-2022                                                                            3




                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050921
                                         3
                                3 of 3
             ::: Downloaded on - 18-04-2023 22:13:14 :::