Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajender vs State Of Haryana on 16 December, 2023

Author: Anoop Chitkara

Bench: Anoop Chitkara

                                                             Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161826




CRM-M-59916-2023

220                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                                      CRM-M-59916-2023
                                                      Reserved on: 08.12.2023
                                                      Pronounced on: 16.12.2023

Rajender                                              ...Pe  oner

                                     Versus

State of Haryana                                      ...Respondent


CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:       Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate
               for the pe  oner.

           Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
                               ****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

 FIR No.        Dated             Police Sta on           Sec ons
 191            13.03.2020        City     Ballabhgarh, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471,
                                  District Faridabad      120-B IPC and 7, 13 (1) (D) of
                                                          PC Act, 1988

1. The pe oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap oned above, has come up before this Court under Sec on 438 CrPC seeking an cipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 11 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 including declara on of assets by the pe oner and their family members, and are also voluntarily agreeable to the condi on that ll the conclusion of the trial, the pe oner shall keep only one mobile number, which is men oned in AADHAR card, if any, and within ﬁ>een days undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The pe oner contends that custodial interroga on and pre-trial incarcera on would cause an irreversible injus ce to the pe oner and family.

4. The state's counsel opposes the bail and states that considering the allega ons, the pe oner's custodial interroga on is necessary.

5. Earlier, pe oner ﬁled CRM-M No.3732 of 2021 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.05.2022. Perusal of order dated 27.05.2022 clariﬁes that there was no reference to any arguments on merits and it was simply withdrawn.

1 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161826

CRM-M-59916-2023

6. Facts of the case are being extracted from reply dated 05.12.2023 ﬁled by concerned DySP which reads as under:-

"That a police case bearing FIR No. 191 dated 13.03.2020 under sec on 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sec on 7 and 13(1)(d) of PC Act, has been registered at Police Sta on Ballabgarh City on the basis of a complaint made by Sh. Jagdish, Inspector, CM Flying Squad, through DSP, CM Flying Squad, Faridabad, to eﬀect that few vehicle owners and touts have tempered in the original bill invoice and invoice form number 21 and 22 showed lesser pricing than the original price and in connivance with Computer operator employees who are employed in the authority have paid lesser tax and got the vehicle registered at the lesser rate than the rate ﬁxed and due to which revenue loss has been caused to the State of Government. During the enquiry in this regard it was found out that from the vehicle Registra on Oﬃce Ballabgarh the vehicle bearing number HR-29AU-0230 marka Escorts Chasis No. ECE02169LK0302616 Engine No. FPY823496 has been registered and from the perusal of record with Registering Oﬃce Ballabgarh price of motor vehicle has been shown to be Rs. 10,01,112/- and tax of Rs. 60,070/- has been deposited. When enquiry was made from manufacturing company Escorts Ltd. Then it was found out that the total price of the vehicle is Rs. 23,70,620/- having chasis number ECE02169 LK0302616 engine number FPY823496 and the price of the vehicle has been shown lesser by changing and puDng star before and aEer Chasis number. As per motor vehicle rules, the tax for the motor vehicle was Rs. 1,42,237 at the rate of 6% whereby only tax of Rs. 60,070/- was paid towards motor vehicle tax and in this manner loss of Rs. 82167/- has been caused to the state government. In this manner the buyer of the vehicle in connivance with computer operator posted at Motor Vehicle Registra on Oﬃce Ballabgarh and others prepared ﬁc ous invoices etc. and it has been found that there is embezzlement of revenue which is collected by state government as motor vehicle tax. Similarly in other maIers there can be embezzlement of motor vehicle tax. In the above episode there is necessity of iden fying the vehicle owners, touts computer operator and concerned person aEer registering the case against them. Since the contents of FIR have already been men oned in

2 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161826

CRM-M-59916-2023

the pe on, hence the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity."

7. I have heard counsel for the par es.

8. In Abdul Basit @ Raju v. Md. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary, SLP (Crl.) No. 68556857 of 2013, decided on 15.9.2014, Supreme Court holds, [25]. It is an accepted principle of law that when a maEer has been ﬁnally disposed of by a Court, the Court is, in the absence of a direct statutory provision, functus oﬃcio and cannot entertain a fresh prayer for relief in the maEer unless and un l the previous order of ﬁnal disposal has been set aside or modiﬁed to that extent. It is also seEled law that the judgment and order gran ng bail cannot be reviewed by the Court passing such judgment and order in absence of any express provision in the Code for the same. Sec on 362 of the Code operates as bar to any altera on or review of the cases disposed of by the Court. The singular excep on to the said statutory bar is correc on of clerical or arithme cal error by the Court.

[29]. It is a well seEled proposi on of law what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. While exercising a statutory power a Court is bound to act within the four corners of the Statute. The statutory exercise of the power stands on a diﬀerent pedestal than the power of judicial review vested in a Court....

9. In Rani Dudeja v. State of Haryana, (2017) 13 SCC 555, Supreme Court holds, [4]. ...The pe on was for an cipatory bail and the one which had been ﬁled earlier might have been withdrawn in a given situa on, without invi ng the Court to consider the same on merits. On change of circumstances, when another applica on under Sec on 438 Cr.P.C. was ﬁled, the High Court should have considered the same on merits. The principle of res judicata could not have operated in an applica on for bail.

10. In G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021( 1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 843, a three-member bench of Supreme Court holds, [7]. As a maEer of fact, successive an cipatory bail applica ons ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No. 2) is absconding and not coopera ng with the inves ga on. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive an cipatory bail applica ons, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.

11. In Manjinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2023(3) Law Herald 2080, a division bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, while answering the reference "whether a second an cipatory bail applica on under Sec on 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when the ﬁrst one ﬁled by the pe oner has been withdrawn?" holds,

3 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161826

CRM-M-59916-2023

[12]. We have already held that second/subsequent/successive an cipatory bail applica on would not be maintainable where such an applica on has been dismissed by the Court on merits by passing a speaking order. Further qua the an cipatory bail applica on, it can be said that once a ﬁrst bail applica on under Sec on 438 Cr.P.C. stands withdrawn, a second or subsequent bail applica on would not be maintainable merely on the ground that some new inconsequen al and cosme c change in circumstances has/have come about, further developments such as arrest of co- accused or main accused or bail granted to co-accused, diﬀerent considera ons, some more details, new documents or illness of the accused. It would also not be maintainable on a plea or ground that the Court on the earlier occasion failed to consider any par cular aspect or material on record or that any point then available to the accused was not taken, agitated or pressed before the Court.

12. In Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan and others, 2005 CrLJ 2086, a full bench of Rajasthan High Court observed, [25]. In the ul mate analysis, placing reliance on the ra o indicated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar's case (2005(2) SCC 42), we hold that second or subsequent bail applica on under Sec on 438 Cr.P.C. can be ﬁled if there is a change in the fact situa on or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier ﬁnding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent applica on. Second or subsequent an cipatory bail applica on shall not be entertained on the ground of new circumstances, further developments, diﬀerent considera ons, some more details, new documents or illness of the accused. Under no circumstances the second or successive an cipatory bail applica on shall be entertained by the Sec on Judge/Addi onal Sessions Judge.

13. In Harninder Kaur alias Maninder Kaur v. State of Punjab and another, Neutral Cita on No: 2014:PHHC:013875, Punjab & Haryana High Court observed, Though, it is second an cipatory bail applica on but keeping in view the changed circumstances of the case and the fact that compromise has already been eﬀected between the par es and quashing pe on on the basis of compromise is pending before this Court and without discussing the facts of the case in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case, the present pe on is accepted. It is ordered that in the event of arrest, the pe oner be released on bail subject to her furnishing personal bonds and surety to the sa sfac on of Arres ng/Inves ga ng Oﬃcer.

14. In Arjun Bhanot v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-22618 of 2019, decided on 27.08.2021, Punjab & Haryana High Court observed, [23]. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that normally the subsequent bail applica on ﬁled by the accused cannot be entertained unless the fresh prayer is actually based upon new substan al grounds, which were not available to the accused

4 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161826

CRM-M-59916-2023

when the previous bail applica on was decided on merits. It is further clariﬁed that a ground which was available to the pe oner at the ﬁrst instance, but was not raised cannot be construed as a fresh ground to maintain the subsequent prayer for bail.

15. In Ankur v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-31398 of 2021, decided on 19.08.2021, Punjab & Haryana High Court observed, [7]. ...The plea of alibi taken by the pe oner in the present pe on cannot be considered in successive bail applica on as the earlier bail applica on was dismissed by passing a detailed speaking order.

16. In Balkar Singh v. State of Haryana, Neutral Cita on No:=2023:PHHC:112650, Punjab & Haryana High Court observed, [10]. In my considered view, the instant second pe on for an cipatory bail cannot be considered only on the ground that the compromise dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P-7) has been eﬀected into between the par es and the complainant has tendered an aﬃdavit dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P-8) to this eﬀect.

17. An analysis of the above judicial precedents leads to the following outcome. Sec on 362 of the Code operates as bar to any altera on or review of the cases disposed of by the Court.1 It is an accepted principle of law that when a maEer has been ﬁnally disposed of by a Court, the Court is, in the absence of a direct statutory provision, functus oﬃcio and cannot entertain a fresh prayer for relief in the maEer unless and un l the previous order of ﬁnal disposal has been set aside or modiﬁed to that extent.2 Second/subsequent/successive an cipatory bail applica on would not be maintainable where such an applica on has been dismissed by the Court on merits by passing a speaking order.3 The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive an cipatory bail applica ons, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.4 Further qua the an cipatory bail applica on, it can be said that once a ﬁrst bail applica on under Sec on 438 Cr.P.C. stands withdrawn, a second or subsequent bail applica on would not be maintainable merely on the ground that some new inconsequen al and cosme c change in circumstances has/have come about, further developments such as arrest of co-accused or main accused or bail granted to co-accused, diﬀerent considera ons, some more details, new documents or illness of

Abdul Basit @ Raju v. Md. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary, SLP (Crl.) No. 68556857 of 2013, decided on 15.9.2014, Supreme Court, Para 25.

Manjinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2023(3) Law Herald 2080, Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, para 12.

G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021( 1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 843, three-member bench of Supreme Court, Para 7.

5 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161826

CRM-M-59916-2023

the accused.5 It would also not be maintainable on a plea or ground that the Court on the earlier occasion failed to consider any par cular aspect or material on record or that any point then available to the accused was not taken, agitated or pressed before the Court.6 Second or subsequent bail applica on under Sec on 438 Cr.P.C. can be ﬁled if there is a change in the fact situa on or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier ﬁnding has become obsolete; this is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent applica on.7 The pe on was for an cipatory bail and the one which had been ﬁled earlier might have been withdrawn in a given situa on, without invi ng the Court to consider the same on merits; On change of circumstances, when another applica on under Sec on 438 Cr.P.C. was ﬁled, the High Court should have considered the same on merits.8

18. Sec on 3629 CrPC does not permit altera on or review of any judgment or order by any criminal court except to correct clerical or mathema cal errors. Sec on 362 CrPC governs 438 as well as 437 & 439 CrPC. The successive bail applica ons, both an cipatory and regular, are not maintainable for reviewing the earlier grounds, or bail was not dismissed on merits, or withdrawn in a given situa on, or there is a substan al change in the fact situa on, or change in the law that has repealed the earlier penal provision in which the bail was dismissed, etc., or the ﬁndings have become obsolete. The Court of Sessions cannot entertain the second an cipatory bail pe oner (ﬁled under sec on 438 CrPC) because the High Court, which, in addi on to Ar cle 227 of the Cons tu on of India, vide sec on 401 CrPC, has the powers of superintendence over the Sessions Court, and further, because High Court also has concurrent jurisdic on for bail under sec on 438 CrPC. Thus, any person whose an cipatory bail has been dismissed by the Sessions Court does not remain remediless and can always come before the High Court under sec on 438 CrPC. However, bail applica ons ﬁled under sec ons 437 & 439 CrPC are maintainable not only on the grounds men oned above but also on the addi onal new grounds, such as non-ﬁling of the police report on me or within a reasonable me, delay in the trial, substan al changes in the witnesses' stand, or compromise, etc.

Manjinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2023(3) Law Herald 2080, Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, para 12.

Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan and others, 2005 CrLJ 2086, three-member bench of Rajasthan High Court, Para 25.

6 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161826

CRM-M-59916-2023

19. Given this, the withdrawal of previous bail pe on will not come in the way of the pe oner ﬁling the second pe on and its decision on merits of the case.

20. An analysis of the pleadings and arguments would lead to following outcome. Pe oner's name cropped up in the disclosure statement of co-accused Dampi and he was not named in the FIR. Pe oner claims to be working as an agent who helps people in registra on of their vehicle with the government authori es. Considering the boElenecks in registra on authori es, these agents expedite their registra on process. As per para no.3 of the reply, 39 vehicles were found registered at lower price. AdmiEedly, no such vehicle has been registered in the name of the pe oner.

21. As per para no.10 of the reply, total loss caused due to the pe oner is Rs.2,63,610.08/- amongst six vehicles where the registra on fee to the aforesaid extent was evaded. Further allega on is that the pe oner is using fake leEer head of several companies.

22. State counsel seeks custodial interroga on of the pe oner for quan ta ve inves ga on and to ﬁnd out other frauds commiEed by him.

23. This Court had already granted bail to co-accused Raj Kumar Singh- broker/agent in CRM-M No.52405 of 2023 vide order dated 02.12.2023 and co-accused Arun Mahajan- owner in CRM-M No.44858 of 2023 vide order dated 02.12.2023.

24. 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 primafacie perusal of paragraph 10 of the bail pe on needs considera on for bail.

25. 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

7 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161826

CRM-M-59916-2023

prevailing require, 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 UEar Pradesh, 2018:INSC:107 [Para 7], (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 maEer and though that discre on is unfeEered, 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.

26. 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 v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92], (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 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.

27. 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.

28. In Madhu Tanwar v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21], CRM- M-27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed,

8 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161826

CRM-M-59916-2023

[10] The exponen al growth in technology and ar ﬁcial intelligence has transformed iden ﬁca on techniques remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recogni on are incredibly sophis cated and pervasive. Impersona on, as we know it tradi onally, has virtually become impossible. Thus, the remedy lies that whenever a judge or an oﬃcer believes that the accused might be a ﬂight risk or has a history of ﬂeeing from jus ce, then in such cases, appropriate condi ons can be inserted that all the expenditure that shall be incurred to trace them, shall be recovered from such person, and the State shall have a lien over their assets to make good the loss.

[21] In this era when the knowledge revolution has just begun, to keep pace with exponential and unimaginable changes the technology has brought to human lives, it is only fitting that the dependence of the accused on surety is minimized by giving alternative options. Furthermore, there should be no insistence to provide permanent addresses when people either do not have permanent abodes or intend to re-locate.

29. 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 Court, before whom the bonds are required to be furnished. When the bonds are to be furnished before a Judicial Magistrate, then in case of the non-availability of the concerned Judicial Magistrate, to any other nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate.

Before accep ng the surety, the concerned oﬃcer/court must sa sfy that if the accused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the court.

(b). Pe oner to hand over to the concerned court 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 favor of the 'Chief Judicial Magistrate' of the concerned district, or blocking the aforesaid amount in favour of the concerned 'Chief Judicial Magistrate'. Said ﬁxed deposit or blocking funds can be from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or from any of the well-established and stable private sector banks. In case the bankers are not willing to make a Fixed Deposit in such eventuality it shall be permissible for the pe oner to prepare an account payee demand dra> favouring concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for a similar amount.

9 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161826

CRM-M-59916-2023

(c). Such court shall have a lien over the funds 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.

(d). The pe oner is to also execute a bond for aEendance 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 of this bail order.

(e). While furnishing personal bond, the pe oner shall men on the following personal iden ﬁca on details:

1. AADHAR number

2. Passport number, (If available), when the court aEes ng the bonds thinks appropriate or considers the accused as a ﬂight risk.

3. Mobile number (If available)

4. E-Mail id (If available)

30. 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.

31. Pe oner to comply with their undertaking made in the bail pe on, made before this court through counsel as reﬂected at the beginning of this order or in earlier orders. If the pe oner fails to comply with any of such undertakings, then on this ground alone, the bail might be canceled, and the vic m/complainant may ﬁle any such applica on for the cancella on of bail, and the State shall ﬁle the said applica on.

32. The pe oner is directed not to keep more than one prepaid SIM, i.e., one pre-

paid mobile phone number, ll the conclusion of the trial; however, this restric on is only on prepaid SIMs [mobile numbers] and not on post-paid connec ons or landline numbers. The pe oner must comply with this condi on within ﬁ>een days of release from today. The concerned DySP shall also direct all the telecom service providers to

10 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161826

CRM-M-59916-2023

deac vate all prepaid SIM cards and prepaid mobile numbers issued to the pe oner, except the one that is men oned as the primary number/ default number linked with the AADHAAR card and further that ll the no objec on from the concerned SHO, the mobile service providers shall not issue second pre-paid SIM/ mobile number in the pe oner's name. Since, as on date, in India, there are only four prominent mobile service providers, namely BSNL, Airtel, Vodafone-Idea, and Reliance Jio, any other telecom service provider are directed to comply with the direc ons of the concerned Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police, issued in this regard and disable all prepaid mobile phone numbers issued in the name of the pe oner, except the main number/default number linked with AADHAR, by taking such informa on from the pe oner's AADHAR details or any other source, for which they shall be legally en tled by this order. This condi on shall con nue ll the comple on of the trial or closure of the case, whichever is earlier. In Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 INSC 655, [para 45], while gran ng bail under Unlawful Ac vi es (Preven on) Act, 2002, Supreme Court had directed imposi on of the similar condi on, which reads as follows, "(d) Both the appellants shall use only one Mobile Phone each, during the me they remain on bail and shall inform the Inves ga ng Oﬃcer of the NIA, their respec ve mobile numbers."

33. 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 canceled due to non-appearance or breach of condi ons.

34. The condi ons men oned above imposed by this Court are to endeavour that the accused does not repeat the oﬀence and to provide vic m a sense of security. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], 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."

11 of 12

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161826

CRM-M-59916-2023

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. 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 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.

39. 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.

40. In return for the protec on from incarcera on, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.

41. 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 aIest it to be a true copy. In case the aIes 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 aIes ng bonds.

Pe))on allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed.



                                                 (ANOOP CHITKARA)
16.12.2023                                            JUDGE
Jyo  Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned:            Yes
Whether reportable:                   YES.
                                                             Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161826

                                      12 of 12