Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rikesh Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 20 April, 2023
CRM-M-19382-2023 2023:PHHC:056004
106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-19382-2023
Date of Decision: 20.04.2023
Rikesh ...Pe oner
Versus
Central Bureau of Inves ga on ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Rajesh Anand, Advocate and
Mr. Abhay Kumar Tripathi, Advocate
for the pe oner.
Ms. Shubhra Singh, Advocate for the respondent-CBI.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta on Sec ons
RC-221/2020/ 27.04.2022 CBI, EO-III, New Delhi 120-B, 420, 406, 468, 471 IPC
E0015
1. The pe oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap oned above, on the allega ons
of chea ng, has come up before this Court under Sec on 438 CrPC seeking an cipatory
bail.
2. In paragraph 27 of the bail pe on, the accused declares that he has no criminal
antecedents.
3. Pe oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi ons.
Pe oner's counsel argued that the custodial inves ga on would serve no purpose
whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarcera on would cause an irreversible injus ce to the
pe oner and family.
4. State's counsel opposes the bail.
REASONING:
5. The allega ons against the pe oner are that he was an empanelled lawyer and
he is in conspiracy with other co accused submi ed false tle inves ga on reports
cer fying that sale deed was genuine and was in name of Naresh Kumar. Given the
penal provisions imposed and the sentence provided by the Legislature, the nature of
allega ons coupled with the fact that the pe oner is a first offender, and one of the
relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a prima
JYOTI
2023.04.24 14:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-19382-2023 2023:PHHC:056004
facie perusal of paragraph 20 of the bail pe on needs considera on for bail.
6. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a
Cons tu onal Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the
cumula ve effect of the variety of circumstances jus fying 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 en tled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecu on 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 sa sfac on for the need to release such
person on bail, in the given fact situa ons. The rejec on of bail does not preclude filing
a subsequent applica on. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances
then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situa on. In State of Rajasthan v
Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court no ceably illustrated that the
basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are
circumstances sugges ve of fleeing from jus ce or thwar ng the course of jus ce or
crea ng other troubles in the shape of repea ng offences or in mida ng witnesses and
the like by the pe oner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that
the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the pe oner to avoid the course
of jus ce and must weigh when considering the ques on of jail. So also, the
heinousness of the crime. In Gudikan Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC
240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release
unless countered by the nega ve criteria necessita ng that course. In Prahlad Singh
Bha 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 considera ons. In
Dataram Singh v State of U ar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held
that the grant or refusal of bail is en rely within the discre on of the judge hearing the
ma er and though that discre on is unfe ered, it must be exercised judiciously,
compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, condi ons for the grant of bail ought
not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail
illusory.
7. The possibility of the accused influencing the inves ga on, tampering with
evidence, in mida ng witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing jus ce, can be taken care
of by imposing elabora ve and stringent condi ons. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1,
Para 92, the Cons tu onal Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence
produced, the Courts can impose restric ve condi ons. In Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T.
of Delhi, (2013)15 SCC 570, Para 11, Supreme Court holds that while exercising power
Under Sec on 438 of the Code, the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the
individual's right to personal freedom and the right of inves ga on of the police. While
JYOTI
2023.04.24 14:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-19382-2023 2023:PHHC:056004
exercising utmost restraint, the Court can impose condi ons countenancing its object as
permissible under the law to ensure an uninterrupted and unhampered inves ga on.
8. Without commen ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
to this case, and for the reasons men oned above, the pe oner makes a case for bail,
subject to the following terms and condi ons, which shall be over and above and
irrespec ve of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.
9. In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, Neutral Cita on No: 2022:PHHC:003277,
[Para 53], Law Finder Doc Id # 1933969], this Court observed,
[53]. The pragma c approach is that while gran ng bail with
sure es, the "Court" and the "Arres ng Officer" should give a choice
to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed
deposit, or direct electronic money transfer where such facility is
available, or crea ng a lien over his bank account. The accused
should also have a further op on to switch between the modes. The
op on lies with the accused to choose between the sure es and
deposits and not with the Court or the arres ng officer.
10. Given above, provided the pe oner is not required in any other case, the
pe oner shall be released on bail in the FIR cap oned above, in the following terms:
(a). Pe oner to furnish 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 sa sfac on of
the concerned inves gator/SHO. Before accep ng the surety, the concerned officer
must sa sfy that if the accused fail to appear in court, then such surety can produce
such accused before the court.
OR
(b) Pe oner to hand over to the concerned inves gator/SHO a fixed deposit for Rs.
Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automa c renewal of the principal
and the interest rever ng to the linked account, made in favour of the 'Chief Judicial
Magistrate' of the concerned district. The fixed deposit may be made from any of the
banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or any of the well-established and
stable private sector banks. The fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the
pe oner's account.
(c). In case of the launching of the prosecu on, the said fixed deposit be forwarded to
the concerned court along with the police report/challan under 173 CrPC.
(d). Such court shall have a lien over the deposit un l the case's closure, or discharged
by subs tu on, or up to the expiry of the period men oned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973,
and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the en re amount of
fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor.
(e). It shall be the discre on of the pe oner to choose between surety bonds and
fixed deposits. It shall also be open for the pe oner to apply to the Inves gator or the
concerned court to subs tute the fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa.
JYOTI
2023.04.24 14:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-19382-2023 2023:PHHC:056004
(f). On the reverse page of personal bond, the pe oner shall men on her/his
permanent address along with the phone number, preferably that numbers which is
linked with the AADHAR, and e-mail (if any). In case of any change in the above
par culars, the pe oner shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such
modifica on in mate about the change to the concerned police sta on and the
concerned court.
(g). The pe oner is to also execute a bond for a endance in the concerned court(s) as
and when asked to do so. The presenta on of the personal bond shall be deemed
acceptance of the declara ons made in the bail pe on and all other s pula ons,
terms, and condi ons of sec on 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and
also of this bail order.
11. The pe oner is directed to join the inves ga on within seven days and also as
and when called by the Inves gator. The pe oner shall be in deemed custody for
Sec on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The pe oner shall join the inves ga on as and
when called by the Inves ga ng Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate
with the inves ga on at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, it
will be open for the prosecu on to seek cancella on of the bail. Whenever the
inves ga on occurs within the police premises, the pe oner shall not be called before
8 AM, let off before 6 PM, and shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent
language, inhuman treatment, etc.
12. The pe oner 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.
13. Within fi een days from today, the pe oners shall forward to the
Inves gator/SHO and the complainant/vic m(s) the complete details of bank account
numbers with addresses, fixed deposits, DEMAT account numbers, the current market
value of jewelry, sovereign metals, all precious ar cles, held either individually or
jointly, and cash-in-hand. If the pe oner fails to comply with this condi on, then on
this ground alone the bail might be cancelled, and the complainant may file any such
applica on for the cancella on of bail, and State shall file the said applica on.
14. During the trial's pendency, if the pe oner repeats or commits any offence
where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condi on as
s pulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for
cancella on of this bail. It shall further be open for any inves ga ng agency to bring it
to the no ce of the Court seized of the subsequent applica on that the accused was
earlier cau oned not to indulge in criminal ac vi es. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall
remain in force throughout the trial and a er that in Sec on 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not
JYOTI
2023.04.24 14:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-19382-2023 2023:PHHC:056004
canceled due to non-appearance or breach of condi ons.
15. The condi ons men oned above imposed by this Court are to endeavour that the
accused does not repeat the offence and to provide an opportunity to the vic m to
consider legal remedies for recovery of the amount. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of
NCT of Delhi, Writ Pe on (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022,
A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail condi ons
imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to
serve but must also be propor onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while
imposing bail condi ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a
fair trial. While doing so, condi ons that would result in the depriva on of rights and
liber es must be eschewed." In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ
Pe on (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge
bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail condi ons imposed by the Court
must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be
propor onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail
condi ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial.
While doing so, condi ons that would result in the depriva on of rights and liber es
must be eschewed."
16. Any Advocate for the pe oner and the Officer in whose presence the pe oner
puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all condi ons of this bail order in any
language that the pe oner understands.
17. If the pe oner finds bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be
brought to the no ce of this Court for appropriate reduc on. Further, if the pe oner
finds bail condi on(s) as viola ng fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing
difficulty due to any situa on, then for modifica on of such term(s), the pe oner may
file a reasoned applica on before this Court, and a er 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 condi on.
18. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the
inves ga ng agency from further inves ga on as per law.
19. In case the Inves gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta on arraigns
another sec on of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new sec on prescribes
maximum sentence which is not greater than the sec ons men oned above, then this
bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec on(s).
However, suppose the newly inserted sec ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the
maximum sentence prescribed in the sec ons men oned above, then, in that case, the
JYOTI
2023.04.24 14:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-19382-2023 2023:PHHC:056004
Inves gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe oner no ce of a minimum of seven
days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.
20. Any observa on 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 protec on from incarcera on, the Court believes that the
accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.
22. The SHO of the concerned police sta on or the inves ga ng officer shall arrange
to send a copy of this order, preferably a so copy, to the complainant and the vic m,
without any delay. If the vic m(s) no ce any viola on of this order, they may inform the
SHO of the concerned police sta on, the trial court, or even this court.
23. There would be no need for a cer fied copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and
any Advocate for the Pe oner can download this order along with case status from the
official web page of this Court and a est it to be a true copy. In case the a es ng officer
wants to verify the authen city, such an officer can also verify its authen city and may
download and use the downloaded copy for a es ng bonds.
Pe on allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
20.04.2023
Jyo -II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
JYOTI
2023.04.24 14:53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
