The Punjab and Haryana High Court in a petition challenging anticipatory bail granted to the accused in an extortion case held that the same was without application of mind and the cavalier and cursory approach with which the State had approached the cancellation of bail cannot be appreciated as the same had a direct and serious impact on the liberty of the accused.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed under Section 439 (2) read with Section 482 CrPC for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak in June 2023 pertaining to a case wherein the accused had allegedly put a person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, to commit extortion under Sections 387 and 120-B IPC.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the accused was involved in the present case based on a disclosure statement made by his co-accused, indicating his involvement in the alleged occurrence. It was further submitted that the prayer for cancellation of anticipatory bail has been made on the ground that there is no data regarding the conversation of the respondent with his accomplices and it would take time to retrieve the data through the forensic laboratory and in that time the accused may commit other crimes of similar nature as he was earlier involved in another FIR pertaining to a murder case as well.
Observations of the Court:
The court after perusing the record stated that the present petition has been filed on flimsy and fragile grounds and further referred to the decision of the court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI wherein it was held that for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, bail applications may be decided without the accused being taken into custody and promotes granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.
The court further referred to the case of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar wherein it was held that arrest must only be made in offences punishable with seven years or less if there is a likelihood of the accused impeding the progress of the trial by tampering with the evidence or threatening a witness and in absence of such considerations, incarceration of the accused will serve no purpose except overcrowding of jails.
Further, the court stated that in the exercise of judicial review, the scope of interference in an order granting bail was quite narrow and the courts are under an obligation to ensure that a balance was maintained between the precious right of the accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and the rights of the victim and society.
The court stated that in the present case, it appeared that the Public Prosecutor has recommended filing the present petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent in a mechanical manner without application of mind and such a whimsical and capricious approach is required to be depreciated.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition with costs and directed to send a copy of the order to the Director of Prosecution, Haryana to take steps towards sensitization of its officers to ensure that filing of appeals before higher Courts is not done in a mechanical fashion which does not meet the objective standard of reason and justice.
Case Title: State of Haryana vs Indraj
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Case No.: Crl. Misc. No. M-1666 of 2024
Advocate for the Applicant: Ms. Geeta Sharma
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
