Ram Parkash vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, on being arraigned as accused of commission of offences punishable under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, for the commission of cognizable and non-bailable offences has come up under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, seeking permission to surrender before this Court, and simultaneously seeking release on bail.

The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Ld. Counsel for the bail petitioner states on instructions that the

petitioner has no criminal past relating to the offences prescribing sentence of seven years and more, or when on conviction, the sentence imposed

was more than three years. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the accused.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are qua using derogatory words prohibited under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On 3.7.2021, the complainant informed the Police Post, Summerhill, Shimla that people belonging to upper caste have caused

huge shortage of water because of the shifting of gate valve and public taps at their instance. The complainant stated that public taps were installed

for gravity based water supply from the distribution tank. A month earlier, the officials of the Irrigation and Public Health Department (IPH), on the

asking of Ward Member, Kunti Devi and other people belonging to the upper caste, had shifted the same. Because of such shifting, the water supply

to people belonging to scheduled caste, are affected. It has also led to huge shortage of drinking water to their cattle. Whenever, they requested

people to re-install the public taps, on that, Kanta Devi, Jagdish Kumar and Ram Prakash used filthy language for them and also addressed them by

the words which are derogatory to the people belonging to the scheduled caste and as such prohibitory under the law. Based on these allegations, the

Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

The contents of FIR/status report reveal that the petitioner stands 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/petitioner is present in Court and had offered to surrender, which request is accepted, and the accused is in deemed custody of this

Court.

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

the opportunity of S. 438 CrPC.

The State has filed the status report, which reveals that the accused has been arraigned as an accused in the FIR mentioned above. 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:

The accused has surrendered in the Court today. The dispute has arisen because of intervention of some government employee and instead of

sending these people to jail, it is for the State to provide water to the complainant. The dispute occurred because of the closer of the public taps

without thinking of its social consequences. Be that as it may, the petitioner cannot be send to jail because of the wrongful action or in-action on the

part of the State.

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 petitioner makes a case for bail.

The petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR mentioned above, subject to his furnishing a personal bond 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 petitioner 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 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.

b) 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.

c) 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.

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 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.

e) 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.

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.

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.