Puran Chand vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

On the allegations of abetting suicide of daughter-in-law, the petitioner, who is aged 48 years, apprehending arrest, came up before this Court under

Section 438 CrPC, seeking anticipatory bail.

A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner straightaway filed the bail petition before High Court, which is permissible given the decision of a

three Judges Bench of HP High Court, in Mohan Lal v Prem Chand, AIR 1980 HP 36, (Para 9 & 15), wherein the Full bench holds that a person can

directly apply for an anticipatory bail or regular bail to the High Court without first invoking the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge.

As per bail petition, a sessions trial under Section 307 of IPC is pending against the petitioner before learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 31.05.2021, complainant informed the aforesaid police station about the suicide committed

by his daughter. He alleged that his daughter was married to Shri Alam Chand alias Anshu ( not arraigned as accused) on 05.05.2020. On 31.05.2021,

at 12 noon, he received a phone call that his daughter has hung herself. On this, he visited the spot and noticed a Dupatta tied around her neck and she

was already removed from the hanging position and lying on the floor. The complainant alleged that father-in-law and mother-in-law of his daughter

were nagging her. They repeatedly told her that she does not know anything. Even 4-5 days earlier, the deceased had informed that they should not

have married their son with her. Over all, the complainant stated that his daughter committed suicide due to instigation and abetment by the accused.

Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has no criminal record and during interim bail, the petitioner joined the investigation. Thus,

custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever and incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and

family.

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:

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 @ 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 GudikantiNarasimhulu 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.

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. 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.

The initial allegations were that the accused were nagging the deceased by saying that she did not know anything. Later on, the complainant

changed the stand and introduced a new theory by levelling allegations of dowry. It is pertinent to mention that there are no allegations against the

husband of the deceased and he is not arraigned as an accused. Given this, there is hardly any motive to the petitioner to trouble her or demand

dowry.

Without commenting on the case's merits and the circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner makes a case for release on bail.

Given the above reasoning, the Court is granting bail to the petitioner, subject to strict 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.

In Manish Lal Shrivastava v State of Himachal Pradesh , CrMPM No. 1734 of 2020, after analysing judicial precedents, this Court observed that

any Court granting bail with sureties should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or give a fixed deposit, with a further option to

switch over to another.

The petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR mentioned above, subject to his/her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR

10,000/-), and shall furnish two sureties of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-) each,to the satisfaction of the Investigator. Before accepting the

sureties, the Attesting Officer must satisfy that in case the accused fails to appear in Court, then such sureties are capable to produce the accused

before the Court, keeping in mind the Jurisprudence behind the sureties, which is to secure the presence of the accused.

In the alternative, the petitioner may furnish a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-), and fixed deposit(s) for Rs. Ten

thousand only (INR 10,000/-), made in favour of Chief Judicial Magistrate of the concerned district.

a) The arresting Officer shall give a time of ten working days to enable the accused to prepare a fixed deposit.

b) Such Fixed deposits may be made from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50%, or any of the stable private banks, e.g.,

HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, etc., with the clause of automatic renewal of principal, and liberty of the interest reverting to the

linked account.

c) Such a fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the account of the petitioner and need not be a single fixed deposit.

d) If such a fixed deposit is made in physical form, i.e., on paper, then the original receipt shall be handed over to the concerned Court.

e) If made online, then its printout, attested by any Advocate, and if possible, countersigned by the accused, shall be filed, and the depositor shall get

the online liquidation disabled.

f) The petitioner or his/her Advocate shall inform at the earliest to the concerned branch of the bank, that it has been tendered as surety. Such

information be sent either by e-mail or by post/courier, about the fixed deposit, whether made on paper or in any other mode, along with its number as

well as FIR number.

g) After that, the petitioner shall hand over such proof along with endorsement to the concerned Court.

h) It shall be total discretion of the petitioner to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits. It shall also be open for the petitioner to apply for

substitution of fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa.

i) Subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, if any, the entire amount of fixed deposit along with interest credited, if any, shall be

endorsed/returned to the depositor(s). Such Court shall have a lien over the deposits up to the expiry of the period mentioned under S. 437-A CrPC,

1973, or until discharged by substitution as the case may be.

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

a) The petitioner to execute a bond for attendance in the concerned Court(s). Once the trial begins, the petitioner shall not, in any manner, try to delay

the proceedings, and undertakes 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 petitioner also promises to appear before the higher Court in terms of Section 437-A CrPC.

b) The attesting officer shall, on the reverse page of personal bonds, mention the permanent address of the petitioner 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 petitioner shall

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

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

c) 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 of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to

tamper with the evidence.

d) The petitioner 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 petitioner 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.

e) 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 petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the specified date, in that eventuality, the concerned Court may issue bailable warrants.

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

petitioner's 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.

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 petitioner and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Copy Dasti.