On January 06, 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a bail plea in a POSCO Act case, observed that a person seeking liberation must take a Judgment and serve a sentence in the event of his conviction and an arrest or detention not only deprives a person of his fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 but also freedom guaranteed by Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, through the present petition filed under section 439 Cr.P.C., sought a grant of the regular bail in the FIR No. 225 dated 13.9.2021 under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station NIT Faridabad, District Faridabad.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was a distinct relative of the prosecutrix and was in the custody since 19.9.2021. The counsel further submitted that there was a contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix, as in one statement she stated that the petitioner took her away to a restaurant, and in another statement, she stated that he took her to his friend's house. Whereas, the prosecutrix told to her mother that she was taken away to a park.
It was further added that the prosecutrix and her mother were already examined as well as cross-examined and a total of 20 witnesses and 03 material witnesses were examined. Moreover, the petitioner was wrongly implicated in the commission of the alleged offence, he was not involved in any FIR, was a student of 10+2, stayed with his parents, and was deeply rooted in the society, hence there was no possibility of him fleeing from Justice.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel representing the state submitted that the challan was already filed and the charges were framed. Moreover, the petitioner was involved in the commission of a grave offence, thus, no leniency was warranted and a release of the petitioner would hamper the trial.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court while referring to the judgment in the case, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, observed that the intent of arrest and reason of denial of the bail was to Secure the appearance of the accused at the time of trial; allay the possibility of repeating of offence & jeopardizing own life on account of grim prospect of being convicted; and; avoid any possibility of tampering of evidence and security of witnesses who may be pressurized or maltreated.
The court further observed that the nature of the crime charged, the severity of punishment prescribed, prime facie available evidence, history, and background of the accused indicated that any amount of bond and surety was not going to secure the presence of the accused, at the time of conviction. Moreover, the detention or an arrest not only deprived a person of his fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 but also of the freedom guaranteed by Article 19(1) of our Constitution.
The hon’ble court keeping in mind the custody of the petitioner since 19.9.2021; filed a Police report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. filed and framed charges; the completion of an examination and cross-examination, and no involvement of the petitioner in any other case, granted a concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
The Decision of the Court:
The present petition was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be released on a bail subjected to the conditions imposed by the concerned trial Court/Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.
Case Title: Shivam Vs. State of Haryana
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Case No.- CRM-M- 11419 of 2022(O&M)
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Naresh K. Chhokar
Advocate for Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Sadar
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
