Subhash Singh Dagar vs State Of Haryana

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR No

Dated

Police Station

Section

253

01.08.2022

Sector-14, Gurugram

420 & 120B IPC Sections 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC added later on)

The peoner apprehending arrest in the FIR capo ned above, on the allegaons of conspiring with the other accused, has come up before this Court under Secon 438 CrPC seeking ancipatory bail.

In paragraph 24 of the bail peon, the accused d eclares that he has no criminal antecedents.

Peoner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condions. Peoner’s counsel argued that the custodial inves gaon would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceraon would ca use an irreversible injusce to the peoner and family.

The state's counsel opposes the bail and seeks custodial interrogaon to determine the share of the money that went to the peoner's account and other persons' involvement. The contenon on behalf of th e complainant is that the peoner was aware of the complainant being in poss ession of the flat as per the agreement, and when confronted, the peoner told h im that Manish Kumar Pandey was his caretaker and had no authority to sell his flat. The complainant's counsel submits that these are thugs and work as a team, and do not deserve bail.

REASONING:

The allegaons against the peoner are that he, in conspiracy and involvement of the other accused, namely Manish K Pandey and Anand Yadav, took money from the complainant Bhim Sen, entered an agreement to sell, and delayed the registraon. When pressurized for registraon, they gave the flat 's possession in June 2021 to the complainant and took Rs Seventy-seven lacs from him. Aer that, in August 2022, the peoner came to the said property and told the com plainant that he owned the property and asked him to vacate. On being confronted with the copies of the agreement to sell, the complainant told him that Manish K Pandey was his caretaker and had no authority to sell. However, the said Manish K Pandey had done similar types of frauds. In para 11, the peoner states that Man ish K Pandey took the flat on rent from the peoner's brother Azad Singh and paid adv ance rent ll April 2022. The allegaons of taking money are against Manish K Pan dey and his co-accused Anand Yadav, and there is no allegaon that at the me of taking the advance, the peoner and his brother were present. Thus, the peoner's case is on a lower foong than that against Manish K Pandey and Anand Yadav. Given this, the peoner makes a case for bail; however, the co-accused Manish K Pandey and Anand Yadav would not be entled to bail on parity with the peoner.

Given the penal provisions imposed and the sentence provided by the Legislature, the nature of allegaons coupled with the fact that the peoner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a prima facie perusal of paragraph 11 of the bail Pettion needs consideraon for bail.

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constuonal Bench of Supreme Court held that the b ail decision must enter the cumulave effect of the variety of circumstances jus fying 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 entled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecuon 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 sasf acon for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situaons. The re jecon of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent applicaon. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situaon. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court no ceably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggesve of fleeing from jusce or th warng the course of jusce or creang other troubles in the shape of repeang offe nces or inmidang witnesses and the like by the peoner who seeks enlargement on b ail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the peoner to avoid the course of jusce and must weigh when considering the ques on of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In GudikanNarasimhulu 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 negave criteria necessita ng that course. In Prahlad Singh Bha 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 consideraons. In Dataram Singh v State of Uar Pradesh , (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is enrely within the discreon of the judge hearing the maer and though that discreon is unfeered, it mu st be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, condions 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 invesgaon, tampering with evidence, inmidang witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing jusce, can be taken care of by imposing elaborave and stringent condions. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constuonal Bench held that unusually , subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restricve condion s. 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 Secon 438 of the Code, the Court is duty-bou nd to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of invesgaon of the police. While exercising utmost restraint, the Court can impose condions countenancing its object as permissible under the law to ensure an uninterrupted and unhampered invesgaon.

Without commenng on the case's merits, in the fact s and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons menoned above, t he peoner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and condions, which shall be over and above and irrespecve of the contents of the form of bail bon ds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53, [Law Finder Doc Id # 1933969], this Court observed,

[53]. The pragmac approach is that while granng ba il with surees, the “Court” and the “Arresng Officer” shoul d give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed deposit, or direct electronic money transfer where such facility is available, or creang a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further opon to switch between the modes. The opon lies with the accused to choose between the s urees and deposits and not with the Court or the arresng offic er.

Given above, provided the peoner is not requir ed in any other case, the peoner shall be released on bail in the FIR capo ned above, in the following terms:

(a). Peoner to furnish personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-); AND

(b) To give one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the sasfacon of the concerned invesgator/SHO. Before accepng the surety, the concerned officer must sasfy that if the accused fail to appear in c ourt, then such surety can produce such accused before the court.

OR

(b) Peoner to hand over to the concerned invesga tor/SHO a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automac renewal of the principal and the interest reverng to the linked account, ma de in favour of the ‘Chief Judicial Magistrate’ of the concerned district. The fixed deposit may be made from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or any of the well-established and stable private sector banks. The fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the peoner’s account.

(c). In case of the launching of the prosecuon, th e said fixed deposit be forwarded to the concerned court along with the police report/challan under 173 CrPC.

(d). Such court shall have a lien over the deposit unl the case's closure, or discharged by substuon, or up to the expiry of the period me noned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the enre amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor.

(e). It shall be the discreon of the peoner to c fixed deposits. It shall also be open for the Pettion concerned court to substute the fixed deposit with hoose between surety bonds and er to apply to the Invesgator or the surety bonds and vice-versa.

(f). On the reverse page of personal bond, the pe oner shall menon her/his permanent address along with the phone number, preferably that numbers which is linked with the AADHAR, and e-mail (if any). In case of any change in the above parculars, the peoner shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modificaon inmate about the change to the concerne d police staon and the concerned court.

(g). The peoner is to also execute a bond for ae ndance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presentaon of the per sonal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declaraons made in the bail pe on and all other spulaons, terms, and condions of secon 438(2) of the Code o f Criminal Procedure, 1973, and also of this bail order.

The peoner is directed to join the invesgaon within seven days and also as and when called by the Invesgator . The peoner shall be in deemed custody for Secon 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The peoner shall join the invesgaon as and when called by the Invesgang Officer or any Superio r Officer; and shall cooperate with the invesgaon at all further stages as requi red. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecuon to seek cancellaon of the bail. Whenever the invesgaon occurs within the police premises, the peoner shall not be called before 8 AM, let off before 6 PM, and shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

The peoner shall not influence, browbeat, press urize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.

Within fieen days from today, the peoners shal l forward to the Invesgator/SHO and the complainant/vicm(s) the co mplete details of bank account numbers with addresses, fixed deposits, DEMAT account numbers, the current market value of jewelry, sovereign metals, all precious arcles, held either individually or jointly, and cash-in-hand. If the peoner fails to comply with this condion, then on this ground alone the bail might be cancelled, and the complainant may file any such applicaon for the cancellaon of bail, and State s hall file the said applicaon .

During the trial's pendency, if the peoner rep eats or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condion as spulated in this order, it shall always be permiss ible to the respondent to apply for cancellaon of this bail. It shall further be open for any invesgang agency to bring it to the noce of the Court seized of the subsequent applicaon that the accused was earlier cauoned not to indulge in criminal acvie s. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and aer that in Secon 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not canceled due to non-appearance or breach of condio ns.

The condions menoned above imposed by this Cou rt are to endeavour that the accused does not repeat the offence and to provide an opportunity to the vicm to consider legal remedies for recovery of the amount. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Pettion (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 condions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proporonal to the purpose o f imposing them. The courts while imposing bail condions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condions that would re sult in the deprivaon of rights and liberes must be eschewed.” In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Pettion (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 condions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proporonal to the purpose of imposing them. The co urts while imposing bail condions must balance the liberty of the accused a nd the necessity of a fair trial.

While doing so, condions that would result in the deprivaon of rights and liberes must be eschewed.”

Any Advocate for the peoner and the Officer in w hose presence the peoner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all condions of this bail order in any language that the peoner understands.

If the peoner finds bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be brought to the noce of this Court for appropriate reducon. Further, if the peoner finds bail condion(s) as violang fundamental, huma n, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situaon, then for modificaon o f such term(s), the peoner may file a reasoned applicaon before this Court, and a er 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 condion.

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

In case the Invesgator/Officer-In-Charge of the c oncerned Police Staon arraigns another secon of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new secon prescribes maximum sentence which is not greater than the sec ons menoned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added secon(s). However, suppose the newly inserted secons prescri be a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the secons menoned above, then, in that case, the Invesgator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the peoner noce of a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

Any observaon 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 protecon from incarceraon, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.

There would be no need for a cerfied copy of this o rder for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Peoner can download this ord er along with case status from the official web page of this Court and aest it to be a true copy. In case the aesng officer wants to verify the authencity, such an officer can also verify its authencity and may download and use the downloaded copy for aesng bo nds.

Pettion allowed in aforesaid terms . All pending applicaons, if any, stand disposed.