Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bal Krishan @ Aman vs State Of Ut Chandigarh on 30 August, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112740
1
CRM-M-28821-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-28821-2024
Reserved on: 08.08.2024
Pronounced on: 30.08.2024
Bal Krishan @ Aman ...Petitioner
Versus
State of UT Chandigarh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Neeraj Sansaniwal, Advocate and
Mr. Raman Sihag, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, UT Chandigarh with
Mr. Shubham Mangla, Advocate for the respondent-UT.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
0422 15.11.2023 Sector-36, UT 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 &
Chandigarh 120-B IPC
1. The petitioner, incarcerated upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come
before this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC),
seeking bail.
2. As per custody certificate dated 03.07.2024, the accused has the following criminal
antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offences Police Station
1 07 12.01.2024 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, Sector-36, Chandigarh
120-B IPC
2 23 2017 22 of Prevention of Sadar Ambala
Cruelty to Animal Act (Haryana)
3. Petitioner’s counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the
petitioner and family.
4. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon’ble Supreme
Court holds:-
[10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting
Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute
that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or
pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal1
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:25:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:1127402
CRM-M-28821-2024
antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other
words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case
in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of
fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.
5. While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws
an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness
because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases
where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all
pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an
accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions
resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution
stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included.
Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the
contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the
puddles.
6. Facts of the case are being taken from reply dated 17.07.2024 filed in CRM-M-
28821-2024 (petition filed by co-accused/Arvind Kumar alias Sonu), which reads as
follows:-
“That the brief facts of the case are that instant case, FIR No. 0422 dated
15.11.2023 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B of IPC, P.S.
Sector-36 Chandigarh, was registered on the basis of written complaint
made by the Reader to the Court of Sh. Jaibir Singh, the then Learned
Additional Session Judge, Chandigarh, wherein it was alleged that one
person Talwinder Kumar appeared before the Ld. Court and tried to
furnish his surety/bail bonds, affidavit, Aadhar Card of Talwinder and
report pertaining to land valuation report issued by Halqa Patwari for
grant of bail to accused Kapil involved in FIR No.98/2023 u/s 397 411of
IPC PS-34 and another person Nitin also identified him as Talwinder kumar
before the Hon’ble Court. However, during verification, it found that the
person presenting himself is not Talwinder Kumar and his original name is
Balkrishan @ Aman. Thereafter, both the above said persons were
detained and handed over to the police by the Court of Ld. Addl. Sessions
Judge, Chandigarh and the instant FIR was registered against the accused
persons. Bal Krishan @ Aman and Nitin were arrested from the court.
After registration of above said FIR, the investigation was put into motion.
During the course of investigation, it came in the disclosure statement of
the co-accused petitioner Bal Krishan @ Aman that he was allured by one
Lucky, Sonu (present petitioner) and Billa and they asked him to appear as
surety for accused Kapil in FIR no. 98/2023 u/s 397,411of IPC PS-34 and
they promised him to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/-. He further disclosed that
the forged Aadhar card and property papers were also procured by them
and subsequently he Balkrishan @ Aman and co-accused Nitin have2
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:25:20 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:1127403
CRM-M-28821-2024
submitted forged documents before the Court to get bail for above said
accused Kapil.”
7. Petitioner seeks bail on the ground of pre-trial custody and innocence and also on
the ground of parity with Arvind Kumar alias Sonu who was granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 30.07.2024 passed in CRM-M-32043-2024. However, State opposes the
bail.
8. Although there is sufficient evidence connecting the petitioner with the offence
but this Court is not considering framing of charges at this stage but is concerned for
regular bail. As per paragraph 3 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody
since 15.11.2023 and as per custody certificate dated 03.07.2024, he has undergone 07
months & 17 days of custody. Given the penal provisions invoked regarding pre-trial
custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other
factors peculiar to this case and co-accused already released on bail, there would be no
justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of
terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Thus, the previous criminal history of the
petitioner is not being considered strictly at this stage as a factor for denying bail.
9 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 require, 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 Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme
3
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:25:20 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112740
4
CRM-M-28821-2024
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:INSC:107 [Para 7], (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.
10. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with
evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice can be resolved by
imposing conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para
92], (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the
evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.
11. Without commenting on the case’s merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail,
subject to the following 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.
This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on the official webpage of
this Court.
12. In Madhu Tanwar. v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21], CRM-M-
27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed,
[10] The exponential growth in technology and artificial
intelligence has transformed identification techniques
remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recognition are incredibly
sophisticated and pervasive. Impersonation, as we know it
traditionally, has virtually become impossible. Thus, the remedy
lies that whenever a judge or an officer believes that the
accused might be a flight risk or has a history of fleeing from
justice, then in such cases, appropriate conditions can be
inserted that all the expenditure that shall be incurred to trace
them, shall be recovered from such person, and the State shall
have a lien over their assets to make good the loss.
[21] In this era when the knowledge revolution has just begun,
to keep pace with exponential and unimaginable changes the
technology has brought to human lives, it is only fitting that the
dependence of the accused on surety is minimized by giving
alternative options. Furthermore, there should be no insistence
4
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:25:20 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112740
5
CRM-M-28821-2024
to provide permanent addresses when people either do not
have permanent abodes or intend to re-locate.
13. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above in the following terms:
(a). Petitioner to furnish a 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
satisfaction of the concerned court, and in case of non-availability, to any
nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety,
the concerned officer/court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to
appear in court, such surety can produce the accused.
OR
(b). The petitioner will hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit
of Rs. Ten thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automatic
renewal of the principal and the interest reverting to the linked account,
made in favor of the ‘Chief Judicial Magistrate’ of the concerned district,
or blocking the amount above in favor of the concerned ‘Chief Judicial
Magistrate.’ Said fixed deposit or blocking funds can be from any of the
banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or from any of the
well-established and stable private sector banks. If the bankers are
unwilling to make a Fixed Deposit in such an eventuality, it shall be
permissible for the petitioner to prepare an account payee demand draft
favoring the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for a similar amount.
(c). Such court shall have a lien over the funds until the case’s closure or
discharged by substitution, or up to the expiry of the period mentioned
under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings
under S. 446 CrPC, the entire amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any,
shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor.
(d). The petitioner must also execute a bond for attendance in the
concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presentation of the
personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declarations made in
the bail petition and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of
section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and of this bail
order.
5
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2024 03:25:20 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:112740
6
CRM-M-28821-2024
(e). While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the
following personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) when the court
attests the bond thinks appropriate or considers the
accused as a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
14. The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, or 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.
15. The bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and after that in Section
437-A of the Cr.P.C. if not canceled due to non-appearance or breach of conditions.
16. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case’s merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
17. 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. If 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.
Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
30.08.2024
anju rani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
6
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 01-09-2024 03:25:20 :::