Ajmer Singh And Others vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioners, on being arraigned as accused for the commission of offences punishable under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for the commission of cognizable and non-bailable offences have come up under section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking permission to surrender before this Court, and simultaneously seeking release on ad-interim bail.

Mr. Arun Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that he be permitted to withdraw the petition on behalf of petitioner No.3, with liberty

to file fresh petition before learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala or before this Court as petitioner No.3 could not appear before this Court

due to some personal difficulty/illness.

The prayer is genuine. Given the COVID-19 pandemic, the prayer of petitioner No.3 is allowed and his name is ordered to be deleted from the

array of petitioners and the petition filed on his behalf is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition before Special Judge Kangra at

Dharamshala or before this Court.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioners are that the aforesaid police station received a written complaint on behalf of the complainant,

Joginder Pal, against seventeen persons for the commission of aforesaid offences. The complainant mentioned about long standing litigation pertaining

to possession and transaction related to land. The complainant further states that he is apprehending danger to his life from the accused persons. On

such allegations, police registered the aforesaid FIR. .

The contents of FIR/status report reveal that the petitioners stand arraigned as an accused for the commission of non-bailable offences.

In Ami Chand v. State of H.P., CrMPM 1116 of 2020, Para 65, this Court held that in the absence of any riders or restrictions under S. 439 CrPC,

any person accused of a non-bailable offence, under any penal law, including the violations under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, can apply under section 439 CrPC, offering to surrender and simultaneously seeking interim bail. On receipt of

such application, the Court is to satisfy that the applicant stands arraigned as an accused in a FIR disclosing non-bailable offences. If all these

parameters are complete, then the Courts are under an obligation to accept surrender. Since custody is a sine qua non for considering a bail

application, the Court is under an obligation to consider the prayer for interim bail after this deemed custody. All such pleas fall under the scope of S.

439 CrPC itself, and there is no need to invoke S. 482 CrPC. After that, granting or refusing interim bail is a Judicial function.

The accused/petitioners are present in Court and had offered to surrender, which request is accepted, and the accused are in deemed custody of

this Court.

The Counsel for the petitioners contends that the complainant made false and exaggerated allegations invoking SCSTPOA, with a view to deprive

the opportunity of S. 438 CrPC.

While opposing the bail, the alternative contention on behalf of the State is that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, such a bond must be subject to

very stringent conditions.

REASONING:

As per learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. Give above, this Court

is affording a chance to the petitioners/accused to mend their way and maintain peace and harmony in the society.

In the present case, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR attracts the application of the directions passed in Arnesh

Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, (Para 13), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to instruct its police

officers not to arrest automatically when where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which

may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

Without commenting on the case's merits and the circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioners make a case for bail.

The petitioners shall be released on bail in the FIR mentioned above, subject to their furnishing a personal bond each of Rs. Ten thousand (INR

10,000/), to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial)/ Additional Registrar (Judicial), or any such officer as may be authorised in this behalf by any of

the Registrars of this Court. Given the conduct of the petitioners to offer surrender before this Court, shows that such an accused did not try to

abscond, hence there is no need for surety bonds.

The furnishing of the personal bonds shall be deemed acceptance of the following and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order:

a) The attesting officer shall, on the reverse page of personal bonds, mention the permanent addresses of the petitioners along with the phone

number(s), WhatsApp number (if any), e-mail (if any), and details of personal bank account(s) (if available), and in case of any change, the petitioners

shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modification, intimate about the change of residential addresses and change of phone numbers,

WhatsApp number, e-mail accounts, to the Police Station of this FIR to the concerned Court.

b) The petitioners 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 of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to

tamper with the evidence.

c) The petitioners 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 may be 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 petitioners shall not be called before 8 AM and shall be let off before 5 PM, and

shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

d) In addition to standard modes of processing service of summons, the concerned Court may serve or inform the accused about the issuance of

summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants the accused through E-Mail (if any), and any instant messaging service such as WhatsApp, etc. (if any).

[Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, I.A. No. 48461/2020- July

10, 2020]:

i. At the first instance, the Court shall issue the summons.

ii. In case the petitioners fail to appear before the Court on the specified date, in that eventuality, the concerned Court may issue bailable warrants.

iii. Finally, if the petitioners still fail to put in an appearance, in that eventuality, the concerned Court may issue Non-Bailable Warrants to procure the

petitioners’ presence and may send the petitioner to the Judicial custody for a period for which the concerned Court may deem fit and proper to

achieve the purpose.

e) Once the trial begins, the petitioners shall not, in any manner, try to delay the proceedings, and undertake to appear before the concerned Court and

to attend the trial on each date, unless exempted. In case of an appeal, on this very bond, the petitioners also promise to appear before the higher

Court in terms of Section 437-A CrPC.

The petitioners need not remain present in this Court during the petition's pendency unless directed by this Court to do so.

During the trial's pendency, if the petitioners repeat or commit 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 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 were 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 CrPC.

Any advocate for the petitioners and the Officer in whose presence the petitioners put signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of

this bail order, in vernacular and if not feasible, in Hindi.

In case the petitioners find 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 petitioners 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.

This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation per law.

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.

In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.

In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is allowed in the terms mentioned above.

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 Investigators want to verify the authenticity, they

can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy.

Copy Dasti.