Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ataul Ansari @ Atul Ansari vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2023
CRM-M-31560 of 2021 -1- 2023:PHHC:061077
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
266 CRM-M-31560 of 2021
Reserved on : 21.04.2023
Date of Decision : 29.04.2023
Ataul Ansari @ Atul Ansari ....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. A.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anju Sharma Kaushik, DAG Punjab.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. This is the second petition under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.208 dated 17.08.2019 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 65, 66, 66-C, 66-D and 66-E of
the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 registered at Police
Station Civil Lines, Patiala, District Patiala. The first petition being CRM-
M-16003-2020 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.12.2020.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
petitioner was in custody in FIR No.188 dated 29.07.2019 under Sections
419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Sections 66 and 66-D of the
Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, registered at Police
Station Civil Lines, Patiala. During interrogation, on the basis of a disclosure
statement, the present FIR was lodged. It is further the contention that the
offence alleged to have been committed is the same as in FIR No.188 dated
29.07.2019. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that instead of giving a supplementary challan the second FIR has
JITENDER KUMAR
2023.04.29 12:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
CRM-M-31560 of 2021 -2- 2023:PHHC:061077
been lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that
the change of circumstances is that the petitioner has been in custody for a
period of 03 years 08 months and 02 days and despite the challan having
been presented on 18.11.2019 and charges framed on 23.09.2022, out of 17
witnesses only 06 PWs have been examined. It is further the contention that
the official witnesses are not coming forward to get their statements
recorded despite bailable warrants having been issued for securing their
presence.
3. Per contra learned State counsel has contended that the
petitioner is a habitual offender and hence does not deserve the concession
of bail. Learned State counsel on instructions states that the present FIR is in
continuation of the offence involved in FIR No.188 dated 29.07.2019 and
that the present FIR has been registered on the basis of a disclosure
statement of the co-accused made during interrogation. Learned State
counsel is, however, not in a position to deny that out of 17 witnesses only
06 PWs have been examined and that despite bailable warrants having been
issued the official witnesses are not coming forward to get their statements
recorded.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The petitioner has been in custody for a period of 03 years 08
months and 02 days. Out of the three other cases pending against the
petitioner, in two cases the petitioner has been granted bail and one other
case being FIR No.188 dated 29.07.2019 registered at Police Station Civil
Lines, Patiala is qua the same offence. The challan in the present case was
presented on 18.11.2019 and charges were framed on 23.09.2022. Out of 17
witnesses only 06 have been examined till date. A perusal of the zimni
JITENDER KUMAR
2023.04.29 12:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
CRM-M-31560 of 2021 -3- 2023:PHHC:061077
orders reveals that the official witnesses are not coming forward despite
bailable warrants having been issued to secure their presence.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Muslim @
Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.915
of 2023] decided on 28.03.2023 has held as under :
"21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that
laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail,
may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not
concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the
individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and
their living conditions, more often than not, appalling.
According to the Union Home Ministry's response to
Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had
recorded that as on 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034
prisoners were lodged in jails against total capacity of
4,25,069 lakhs in the country. Of these 122,852 were
convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were undertrials.
22. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates
are at risk of "prisonisation" a term described by the
Kerala High Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State 1993
Cri LJ 3242 as "a radical transformation" whereby the
prisoner:
"loses his identity. He is known by a number. He
loses personal possessions. He has no personal
relationships. Psychological problems result from
loss of freedom, status, possessions, dignity any
JITENDER KUMAR
2023.04.29 12:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
CRM-M-31560 of 2021 -4- 2023:PHHC:061077
autonomy of personal life. The inmate culture of
prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner
becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self-
perception changes."
23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to
crime, "as crime not only turns admirable, but the more
professional the crime, more honour is paid to the
criminal". Incarceration has further deleterious effects -
where the accused belongs to the weakest economic
strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several
cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family
bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore,
have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the
event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is
irreparable), and ensure that trials - especially in cases,
where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken
up and concluded speedily."
7. In view of the above, without commenting upon the merits of
the case and keeping in view the long custody of the petitioner, I deem it a
fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. The
petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing heavy
bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Duty
Magistrate/Trial Court concerned.
8. However, the Prosecution will always be at liberty to apply for
cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found to be misusing the
concession of bail in any manner.
JITENDER KUMAR
2023.04.29 12:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
CRM-M-31560 of 2021 -5- 2023:PHHC:061077
9. It is also made clear that any observation made herein shall not
be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
10. Disposed off. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed
off.
( ALKA SARIN )
29.04.2023 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
JITENDER KUMAR
2023.04.29 12:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment.
Chandigarh
