Satish Kumar & Others vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

On the allegations of abetting the suicide, the petitioners, who are nephew, brother and sister-in-law of the deceased are now apprehending

imminent arrest on being arraigned as accused in FIR number 73/2020, registered under Sections 306, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC, in Police Station

Nadaun, District Hamirpur, HP, disclosing non-bailable offences, have come up under section 438 CrPC, seeking anticipatory bail.

Mr. Nand Lal Thakur learned Additional Advocate General had filed the status report through e-mail, printout of which is available on file.

I have read the status report(s) and heard Mr. Ashwani Kaundal and Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocates for the petitioner, Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Ld.

Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State and Mr. Lovneeesh Kanwar, Advocate as Amicus Curiae.

FACTS:

The allegations in the First Information Report and the gist of the evidence collected by the Investigator are that on 14.6.2020 at around 12.15 p.m.,

on abetting by the petitioners, who are brother, sister-in-law and nephew, the deceased has made an attempt to commit suicide by strangulating

himself. On making hue and cry by the complainant, the deceased was got down by her aunt and taken to Civil Hospital, Nadaun, from where after

giving first aid, he was referred to Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur, where from he was again referred to Tanda Medical College. On 17.6.2020, he died

there during treatment.

PREVIOUS CRIMINAL HISTORY

The Counsel for the Petitioner states on instructions that there is no previous criminal history, and the status report does not dispute it.

SUBMISSIONS:

The learned counsel for the bail petitioners submits that the allegations are false and concocted and they loved the deceased to their fullest. Learned

counsel further states that there was no allegation and advantage to them from his suicide.

On the contrary, Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, contended that the Investigator has come across sufficient prima facie

evidence against the petitioners and opposes the bail. He further submits that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, then such a bond must be subject to

very stringent conditions.

ANALYSIS AND REASONING:

Pre-trial incarceration needs justification depending upon the heinous nature of the offence, terms of the sentence prescribed in the statute for such

a crime, probability of the accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, and doing away with the victim(s) and witnesses. The Court is

under an obligation to maintain a balance between all stakeholders and safeguard the interests of the victim, accused, society, and State.

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, a Constitutional bench of Supreme Court holds in Para 30, as follows,

It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which

must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or

refusal of bail.â€​

The nature of the offence does not restrict bail. The possibility of the petitioners influencing the course of the investigation, or tampering with

evidence (including intimidating witnesses), the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative conditions.

Deciphering the FIR makes out a case for bail. While deciding bail, this Court cannot discuss the evidence threadbare.

The petitioners are permanent residents of Village Manzra, P.O. Pansai, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., therefore, their presence can

always be secured.

Given the above reasoning, the Court is granting bail to the petitioners, subject to the imposition of following stringent conditions, which shall be

over and above, and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC. Consequently, the present petition is allowed.

The petitioners shall be released on bail in the present case, connected with the FIR mentioned above, on their furnishing personal bonds of INR

10,000/, (INR Ten thousand only) each, with one surety each of INR 5,000 (INR Five thousand only), to the satisfaction of the Investigator/SHO of

the concerned Police Station. The furnishing of bail bonds shall be deemed acceptance of all stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order:

a) The Attesting officer shall mention on the reverse page of personal bonds, the permanent address of the petitioner along with the phone number(s),

WhatsApp number (if any), email (if any), and details of personal bank account(s) (if available).

b) The petitioners shall join investigation as and when called by the Investigating officer or any superior officer. Whenever the investigation takes

place within the boundaries of the Police Station or the Police Post, then the petitioners shall not be called before 8 AM and shall be let off before 5

PM. The petitioners shall not be subjected to third-degree methods, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

c) The petitioners shall join and cooperate in the investigation, and failure to do so shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the anticipatory

bail granted by the present order. (Kala Ram v. State of Punjab, 2018 (11) SCC 350).

d) The petitioners shall not influence, threaten, browbeat, or pressurize the witnesses and the Police officials.

e) The petitioners shall not make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating officer, 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.

f) Once the trial begins, the petitioners shall not, in any manner, try to delay the trial. The petitioners undertake to appear before the concerned Court,

on the issuance of summons/warrants by such Court. The petitioners shall attend the trial on each date, unless exempted.

g) There shall be a presumption of proper service to the petitioners about the date of hearing in the concerned Court, even if it takes place through

SMS/WhatsApp message/E-Mail/ or any other similar medium, by the Court.

h) In the first instance, the Court shall issue summons and may inform the Petitioners about such summons through SMS/ WhatsApp message/ E-

Mail.

i) In case the petitioners fail to appear before the Court on the specified date, then the concerned Court may issue bailable warrants, and to enable the

accused to know the date, the Court may, if it so desires, also inform the petitioners about such Bailable warrants through SMS/ WhatsApp message/

E-Mail.

j) Finally, if the petitioners still fail to put in an appearance, then the concerned Court may issue Non-Bailable warrants to procure the petitioners’

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

k) In case of Non-appearance, then irrespective of the contents of the bail bonds, the petitioners undertake to pay all the expenditure (only the

principal amount without interest), that the State might incur to produce them before such Court, provided such amount exceeds the amount

recoverable after forfeiture of the bail bonds, and also subject to the provisions of Sections 446 & 446-A of CrPC. The petitioners’ failure to

reimburse the State shall entitle the trial Court to order the transfer of money from the bank accounts of the petitioners. However, this recovery is

subject to the condition that the expenditure incurred must be spent to trace the petitioners and it relates to the exercise undertaken solely to arrest the

petitioners in that FIR, and during that voyage, the Police had not gone for any other purpose/function what so ever.

l) The petitioners shall intimate about the change of residential address and change of phone numbers, WhatsApp number, e-mail accounts, within ten

days from such modification, to the police station of this FIR, and the concerned Court, if such stage arises.

m) The petitioners shall abstain from all criminal activities. If done, then while considering bail in the fresh FIR, the Court shall take into account that

even earlier, the Court had cautioned the accused not to do so.

n) In case of violation of any of the conditions as stipulated in this order, the State/Public Prosecutor may apply for cancellation of bail of the

petitioners. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall continue to remain in force throughout the trial.

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 before 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.

The learned counsel representing the accused as well as the officer in whose presence the petitioners put signatures on personal bonds shall

explain all conditions of this bail order to the petitioners, in vernacular.

In Sushila Aggarwal versus State (NCT of Delhi) & Another, (2018) 7 SCC, 731, the Constitutional Bench concluded by holding as follows:

“(2) As regards the second question referred to this court, it is held that the life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at

the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial. Again, if there

are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so.

(3) Nothing in Section 438 Cr. PC, compels or obliges courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of

statement of any witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc. While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court

has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence

(including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc. The courts would be justified - and ought to impose

conditions spelt out in Section 437 (3), Cr. PC [by virtue of Section 438 (2)]. The need to impose other restrictive conditions, would have to be judged

on a case by case basis, and depending upon the materials produced by the state or the investigating agency. Such special or other restrictive

conditions may be imposed if the case or cases warrant, but should not be imposed in a routine manner, in all cases. Likewise, conditions which limit

the grant of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they are required in the facts of any case or cases; however, such limiting conditions may not be

invariably imposed.â€​

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

with law.

The present bail order is only for the FIR mentioned above. It shall not be a blanket order of bail in any other case(s) registered against the

petitioners.

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.

The Investigating Officer attesting the bonds shall not insist upon the certified copy of this order and shall download the same from the website of

this Court, or accept a copy attested by an Advocate, which shall be sufficient for the record. The Court Master shall handover an authenticated copy

of this order to the Counsel for the Petitioners and the Learned Advocate General if they ask for the same.

The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand closed.