2023 (7) TMI 1304 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - petitioner contends that the further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family - HELD THAT - The petitioner is in custody since 20.12.2022. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, 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. 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 v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 (1) TMI 1193 - SUPREME COURT , the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions. 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 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 fifteen days of release from prison, the petitioner shall procure a smartphone and inform its IMEI number and other details to the SHO/I.O. of the Police station mentioned above. The petitioner shall always keep the phone location/GPS on the ON mode. Whenever the Investigating officer asks to share the location, the petitioner shall immediately do so. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bail Application under Section 439 of CrPC.
2. Criminal Antecedents of the Petitioner.
3. Conditions for Granting Bail.
4. Consideration of Criminal History.
5. Risk of Influencing Investigation and Tampering with Evidence.
6. Use of Technology and Alternative Options for Bail.

Summary:

1. Bail Application under Section 439 of CrPC:
The petitioner, currently in custody since 20.12.2022, sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for FIR No. 386 dated 13.12.2019, registered at Central Sector-17, Chandigarh, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC (120-B & 201 IPC added later on).

2. Criminal Antecedents of the Petitioner:
The petitioner disclosed previous criminal antecedents in paragraph 29 of the bail application, including FIR No. 683 dated 15.08.2020, registered at Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar, under similar sections of IPC.

3. Conditions for Granting Bail:
The petitioner agreed to stringent conditions, including keeping only one mobile number, disconnecting all others within fifteen days of release, and providing detailed personal and financial information. The court imposed conditions such as furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and a surety of Rs. 25,000 or alternatively, a fixed deposit of Rs. 10,000 in favor of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

4. Consideration of Criminal History:
The court cited precedents like Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that criminal antecedents alone cannot be the basis for denying bail. The court must consider the role of the accused in the current case and other relevant circumstances.

5. Risk of Influencing Investigation and Tampering with Evidence:
The court acknowledged the State's concern about the accused potentially indulging in crime if released but noted that such risks could be mitigated by imposing stringent conditions. The court referenced Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) to support this view.

6. Use of Technology and Alternative Options for Bail:
In line with Madhu Tanwar and Anr. v. State of Punjab, the court recognized the advancements in technology for identification and suggested minimizing dependence on surety by providing alternative options like fixed deposits or demand drafts. The court also mandated the petitioner to keep a smartphone with GPS on, share location details when asked, and comply with other digital monitoring conditions.

Conclusion:
The petitioner was granted bail subject to stringent conditions to ensure compliance and mitigate risks of influencing the investigation or fleeing justice. The court emphasized the balance between the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial, as highlighted in Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi. The petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.