Sr. No.,FIR No,Date,Offences,Police Station
1,30,21.01.2022,"120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC",City Kaithal
2,31,21.01.2022,"120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC",City Kaithal
3,32,21.01.2022,"120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC",City Kaithal
4,33,21.01.2022,"120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC",City Kaithal
5,45,03.02.2022,"120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC",City Kaithal
6,62,22.02.2022,"120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC",City Kaithal
7,134,06.04.2022,"120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC",City Kaithal
8,713,30.12.2021,"120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC",City Kaithal
9,26,20.01.2022,"120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC",City Kaithal
perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or",,,,
creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from,,,,
the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when,,,,
considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikanti 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 negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad,,,,
Singh Bhati 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 considerations. In Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of",,,,
bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously,",,,,
compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby",,,,
making the grant of bail illusory.,,,,
10. 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.",,,,
11. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner",,,,
makes a case for bail, subject to the following 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.",,,,
12. In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53,[Law Finder Doc Id # 1933969],",,,,
this Court observed,",,,,
[53]. The pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with sureties, the “Court†and the “Arresting 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 creating a",,,,
lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further option to switch between the modes. The option lies with the accused to choose,,,,
between the sureties and deposits and not with the Court or the arresting officer.,,,,
13. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, in the",,,,
following terms:,,,,
(a). Petitioner 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 satisfaction of the concerned court, and in case of non-availability, any",,,,
nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned court must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in court,",,,,
then such surety can produce the accused before the court.,,,,
OR,,,,
(b) Petitioner to hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automatic renewal of",,,,
the principal and the interest reverting to the linked account, made in favor of the ‘Chief Judicial Magistrate’ of the concerned district. Said",,,,
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 petitioner's account.,,,,
(c). Such court shall have a lien over the deposit until the case's closure or discharged by substitution, or up to the expiry of the period mentioned",,,,
under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the entire amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall",,,,
be endorsed/returned to the depositor.,,,,
(d). It shall be the total discretion of the petitioner to choose between surety bond and fixed deposit. It shall also be open for the petitioner to apply to,,,,
the Investigator or the concerned court to substitute the fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa.,,,,
(e). On the reverse page of personal bond, the petitioner shall mention her/his permanent address along with the phone number, preferably that",,,,
number which is linked with the AADHAR, and e-mail (if any). In case of any change in the above particulars, the petitioner shall immediately and",,,,
not later than 30 days from such modification, intimate about the change to the concerned police station and the concerned court.",,,,
(f). The petitioner is to also execute a bond for attendance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presentation of the personal,,,,
bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declarations made in the bail petition and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of section 438(2) of the",,,,
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and also of this bail order.",,,,
14. 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 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.",,,,
15. Within fifteen days from release from the prison, the petitioners shall forward to the Investigator/SHO and the complainant/victim(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 articles, held either individually or jointly, and cash-in-hand. If the petitioners fail to comply with this condition, then on this ground alone, the",,,,
bail might be canceled, and the complainant may file any such application for the cancellation of bail, and State shall file the said application.",,,,
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, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for cancellation of this bail. It shall further be open for",,,,
any investigating agency to bring it to the notice of the Court seized of the subsequent application that the accused was earlier cautioned not to indulge,,,,
in criminal activities. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and after that in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not canceled",,,,
due to non-appearance or breach of conditions.,,,,
17. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this Court are to endeavour that the accused tries to reform, does not repeat the offence and to",,,,
provide an opportunity to the victim to consider legal remedies for recovery of the amount. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ",,,,
Petition (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",,,,
conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of,,,,
imposing them. The courts while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so,",,,,
conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.†In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ",,,,
Petition (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",,,,
conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of,,,,
imposing them. The courts while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial.,,,,
While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.â€",,,,
18. 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 any language that the petitioner understands.,,,,
19. If the petitioner finds bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be brought to the notice of this Court for appropriate reduction.",,,,
Further, if the petitioner finds 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.",,,,
20. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law.",,,,
21. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the",,,,
new section prescribes maximum sentence which is not greater than what is prescribed for the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be",,,,
deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the",,,,
maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above, then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of",,,,
a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.,,,,
22. 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.,,,,
23. In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.",,,,
24. The SHO of the concerned police station or the investigating officer shall arrange to send a copy of this order, preferably a soft copy, to the",,,,
complainant and the victim, without any delay. If the victim(s) notice any violation of this order, they may inform the SHO of the concerned police",,,,
station, the trial court, or even this court.",,,,
25. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along",,,,
with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity,",,,,
such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.,,,,
Petition allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.",,,,
