2023 (5) TMI 1265 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Interim Bail - appropriate forum - non-bailable offence - petitioners contends that the custody of petitioners No. 2 and 3 being illegal, they need not to keep in custody merely because the petitioners have, instead of approaching the trial Court, approached the High Court by way of present petition - HELD THAT - Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, where on the bare reading of the FIR and as per the short reply, which has been filed by the respondents, the factual aspect is not disputed with reference to the allegations against the petitioners especially with regard to petitioners No. 2 and 3. The said allegations in the FIR do not make out an offence which would be non-bailable qua them. Under those circumstances, firstly, the officer, who had taken these two petitioners in custody, could not have done so without making them aware of the fact that they could avail of the remedy of release on submission of bail bonds or surety. The same would be the position as regards the order of remand at the hands of the Duty Magistrate as also the Special Court. It appears that at no stage, the provisions of the Statute were actually gone into or seen. In a mechanical manner, initially the Arresting Officer and thereafter, the Judicial Officers proceeded to pass orders of arrest and remand. Continuance of a citizen in custody without there being a mandate of law i.e. illegal custody cannot be permitted. These being prima-facie the principled questions, which need to be decided apart from the other issues, as has been raised in the present petition and by the State, as recorded in the order dated 06.05.2023 as also mentioned by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab today and recorded above, as an interim measure, therefore, this Court grants interim bail to petitioners No. 2 and 3. Mr. Mritunjay Kumar son of Sh. Satish Rai and Parmender Singh Rawat son of Sh. Rajendra Singh are ordered to be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana. Hearing of the case is deferred to 22.05.2023.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the custody and bail of petitioners No. 2 and 3, the legality of their custody, the failure to consider bailable offences, the role of the Duty Magistrate and Special Court in remanding them, the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C., and the protection of constitutional rights.

Custody and Bail of Petitioners No. 2 and 3:
The learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners No. 2 and 3 should also receive interim bail as granted to petitioner No. 1, especially since no non-bailable offence is established against them. It was highlighted that the allegations against petitioner No. 1 under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are the primary focus. Petitioner No. 2 faced allegations related to arguments with the complainant, with no other overt act attributed to him. Petitioner No. 3, the driver of the vehicle, was accused of reckless driving leading to an injury and damage. The counsel contended that bailable offences attributed to petitioners No. 2 and 3 were not appropriately considered during custody, remand, and judicial proceedings.

Legality of Custody and Failure to Consider Bailable Offences:
The legality of the custody of petitioners No. 2 and 3 was questioned, emphasizing that they were not made aware of the option for bail bonds or surety. It was argued that the Duty Magistrate and Special Court mechanically remanded the petitioners without due consideration of the nature of the alleged offences. The Investigating Agency did not press for police remand, indicating a lack of necessity for further investigation. The court noted that the allegations did not establish non-bailable offences against petitioners No. 2 and 3, raising concerns about the legality of their custody.

Exercise of Jurisdiction by the High Court:
The High Court, in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C., was urged to protect the life and liberty of citizens constitutionally. The court deliberated on the fundamental questions regarding personal liberty, the correct application of legal provisions, and the duty to prevent illegal custody. The court emphasized the need to consider the constitutional rights of the petitioners and the scope of the High Court's powers under the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 21 of the Constitution.

Separate Judgement:
An interim order was passed in favor of petitioners No. 2 and 3, granting them interim bail. The court ordered the release of the petitioners on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana. The court clarified that this order did not prevent the petitioners from availing their statutory remedy under Section 439 Cr. P.C. The decision aimed to protect the constitutional rights of the petitioners pending further proceedings.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the issues addressed in the judgment, including the arguments presented by the counsels, the court's considerations regarding custody and bail, the legality of proceedings, and the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court to safeguard constitutional rights.