Parveen Kumar vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 663 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No.141 of 2021 Date of Decision: January 27, 2021.

.

Parveen Kumar ...Petitioner.

Versus

State of H.P.

...Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 NO

For the petitioner: Mr. B.B. Vaid and Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocates.

For the respondent: Ms. Seema Sharma, Dy. A.G., Mr. Manoj Bagga and Mr. Shreyak Sharda, Asstt. A.Gs., for the State.

        FIR No. Dated             Police Station                 Sections
        194 of 18.12.2020         Palampur, District     Kangra, Section 3(1) of the




        2020                      Himachal Pradesh.              SC&ST           and
                                                                 Sections 504, 506
                                                                 and 34 of IPC.





    Anoop Chitkara, Judge (oral).

The petitioner, on being arraigned as accused of commission of offences

punishable under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 and Section 3(1) of the said Act, being cognizable and non-bailable

offences, has come up under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

seeking permission to surrender before this Court, and simultaneously seeking

release on ad-interim bail.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner straightaway filed the bail

petition before High Court, which is permissible given the decision of a three Judges

.

Bench of HP High Court, in Mohan Lal v Prem Chand, AIR 1980 HP 36, (Para 9 &

15), wherein the Full bench holds that a person can directly apply for an anticipatory

bail or regular bail to the High Court without first invoking the jurisdiction of the

Sessions Judge.

3. The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, learned counsel for

the bail petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner has no criminal past

relating to the offences prescribing sentence of seven years and more, or when on

conviction, the sentence imposed was more than three years. Status report stands

filed and taken on record and the same also does not mention any criminal past of the

accused.

4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are using derogatory words

prohibited under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989.

5. The contents of FIR/status report reveal that the petitioner stands arraigned as

an accused for the commission of Non-bailable offences.

6. In Ami Chand v. State of H.P., CrMPM 1116 of 2020, Para 65, this Court

held that in the absence of any riders or restrictions under S. 439 CrPC, any person

accused of a non-bailable offence, under any penal law, including the violations

under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,

can apply under section 439 CrPC, offering to surrender and simultaneously seeking

interim bail. On receipt of such application, the Court is to satisfy that the applicant

stands arraigned as an accused in a FIR disclosing Non-Bailable offences. If all these

parameters are complete, then the Courts are under an obligation to accept surrender.

Since custody is a sine qua non for considering a bail application, the Court is under

an obligation to consider the prayer for interim bail after this deemed custody. All

.

such pleas fall under the scope of S. 439 CrPC itself, and there is no need to invoke

S. 482 CrPC. After that, granting or refusing interim bail is a Judicial function.

7. The accused/petitioner is present in Court and has offered to surrender, which

is accepted, and thus, is in deemed custody of the Court.

8. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant made false and

exaggerated allegations invoking SCSTPOA, with a view to deprive the opportunity

of S. 438 CrPC.

9. While opposing the bail, the alternative contention on behalf of the State is that

if this Court is inclined to grant bail, such a bond must be subject to very stringent

conditions.

10. Reasoning: Keeping in view the nature of allegations and the sentence

prescribed therein, the petitioner has made out a case for bail.

11. In the present case, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences

mentioned in FIR attracts the application of the directions passed in Arnesh Kumar

v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, (Para 13), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court

directed all the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to arrest

automatically when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which

may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or

without fine.

12. 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,

(2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the

evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.

13. Given the above reasoning, coupled with the peculiar facts and circumstances

.

of the case, the Court is granting bail to the petitioner, subject to strict 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.

14. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR mentioned above, subject to

his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the

satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial)/ Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court,

or any such Officer as may be authorised in this behalf by any of the Registrars of

this Court. Given the conduct of the petitioner to offer surrender before this Court,

shows that such an accused did not try to abscond, hence there is no need for surety

bonds.

15. The furnishing of the personal bonds shall be deemed acceptance of the

following and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order:

a) Once the trial begins, the petitioner shall not, in any manner, try to delay

the proceedings, and undertakes to appear before the concerned Court and to attend the trial on each date, unless exempted. In case of an appeal, on this very

bond, the petitioner also promises to appear before the higher Court in terms of Section 437-A CrPC.

b) The attesting officer shall, on the reverse page of personal bonds,

mention the permanent address of the petitioner along with the phone number(s), WhatsApp number (if any), e-mail (if any), and details of personal bank account(s) (if available), and in case of any change, the petitioner shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modification, intimate about the change of residential address and change of phone numbers, WhatsApp number, e-mail accounts, to the Police Station of this FIR to the concerned Court.

c) 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 of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.

d) The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as may be required. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail.

.

Whenever the investigation occurs within the police premises, the petitioner

shall not be called before 8 AM and shall be let off before 5 PM, and shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

e) In addition to standard modes of processing service of summons, the

concerned Court may serve or inform the accused about the issuance of summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants the accused through E-Mail (if any), and any instant messaging service such as WhatsApp, etc. (if any). [Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, I.A. No. 48461/2020- July

10, 2020]:

i. At the first instance, the Court shall issue the summons.

ii. In case the petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the specified

date, in that eventuality, the concerned Court may issue bailable

warrants.

iii. Finally, if the petitioner still fails to put in an appearance, in that eventuality, the concerned Court may issue Non-Bailable Warrants to procure the petitioner's presence and may send the petitioner to the

Judicial custody for a period for which the concerned Court may deem fit and proper to achieve the purpose.

16. During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats or commits any

offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates

any condition as stipulated in this order, the State may move an appropriate

application before this Court, seeking cancellation of this bail. Otherwise, the

bail bonds shall continue to remain in force throughout the trial and after that

in terms of Section 437-A of the CrPC.

17. Any Advocate for the petitioner and the Officer in whose presence the

petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of

this bail order, in vernacular and if not feasible, in Hindi.

18. In case the petitioner finds the bail condition(s) as violating

fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any

situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a

reasoned application before this Court, and after 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 condition.

19. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the

Police or the investigating agency from further investigation per law.

20. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the

merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

21. In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the

accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.

22. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy.

The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above.

Anoop Chitkara, Vacation Judge.

January 27, 2021 (ks).