Anoop Chitkara, J
1. The petitioner, seller of the property, is apprehending his imminent arrest on being arraigned as an accused, has come up under section 438 CrPC,
seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Based on the complaint of Ms. Indu Chauhan, the police registered FIR No.166 of 2020, dated 18.7.2020, under Sections 420, 406, 34 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860, (IPC), in Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, disclosing cognizable and non-bailable offences.
3. I have read the status report(s) and heard counsel for the parties.
FACTS:
4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that Smt. Indu Chauhan, wife of Sh. Devinder Chauhan, resident of Shimla, has made allegations
against the petitioner that there was some agreement to sell land between the father of the petitioner and M/s Eden Cliff Resorts Pvt. Ltd. whereby
deceased Roop Ram had agreed to sell five Bighas of land to them. The allegations were made by Smt. Indu Chauhan that when late Shri Roop Ram
died on 10.9.2017, petitioner succeeded him and in connivance with the property dealer (co-accused Hemant Kumar), fraudulently sold the land to
some other person. She alleged that they have paid Rs.50,00,000/- on 18.9.2014 as first installment, Rs.30,00,000/- in second installment and
Rs.20,00,000/- in the third installment in the same month to the land owner. Despite having agreed to sell the said land to the complainant-Company,
the accused went on to sell the same land to another person. Hence, the present FIR came to be registered.
PREVIOUS CRIMINAL HISTORY
5. The counsel for the petitioner states that the accused has no criminal history. He further submits that conditions may be put that in case the
petitioner repeats the offence, this bail may be canceled.
SUBMISSIONS:
6. Learned counsel for the bail petitioner submits that the allegations are false and concocted and he is joining and fully co-operating the investigation.
7. On the contrary, Ms. Divya Sood, learned Deputy Advocate General, contended that the Investigator has come across sufficient prima facie
evidence against the petitioner and opposes the bail. She further submits that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, then such a bond must be subject to
very stringent conditions.
8. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS:
a) In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, a Constitutional bench of Supreme Court holds in Para 30, as follows:
“It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of
which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant
or refusal of bail.â€
b) In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, a three-member bench of Supreme Court holds:
“18. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a
constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure
established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in custody
during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21
since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled for bail if the court concerned comes to the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in
spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so. In that process a
person whose application for enlargement on bail is once rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail if there is a
change in the fact situation. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing requires that such persons to be released on bail, in spite of his earlier
applications being rejected, the courts can do so.â€
c) In State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, Supreme Court holds:
“2. The basic rule may 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. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.
3. 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 with us when
considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime.â€
d) In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240, Supreme Court in Para 16, holds:
“The delicate light of the law favours release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course.â€
e) In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, Supreme Court holds:
“1. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent
until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific
offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of
our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever
expression one may wish to use) is an exception.
6. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. 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 and in a humane manner and compassionately.
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.â€
ANALYSIS AND REASONING:
9. The original agreement pertains to the year 2014 and the purchaser had even civil remedies like filing a suit for specific performance available to
her/them. The petitioner has also joined investigation and would continue to do so.
10. Pre-trial incarceration needs justification depending upon the offense's heinous nature, terms of the sentence prescribed in the statute for such a
crime, probability of the accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, criminal history of the accused, and doing away with the victim(s)
and witnesses. The Court is under an obligation to maintain a balance between all stakeholders and safeguard the interests of the victim, accused,
society, and State.
11. The nature of the offence also does not restrict bail. The incarceration of the accused during the period of trial is neither warranted, nor justified,
or going to achieve any significant purpose. Without commenting on the merits of the case, coupled with the ongoing situation due to the Covid-19
pandemic, would make out a case for bail.
12. The possibility of the accused influencing the course of the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of
fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative conditions and stringent conditions.
13. Given the above reasoning, the Court is granting bail to the petitioner, subject to the imposition of following stringent conditions, which shall be over
and above, and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The
petitioner shall be released on bail in the present case, connected with the FIR mentioned above, on his furnishing a personal bond of INR 10,000/,
(INR Ten thousand only), with one surety for INR 5,000 (INR Five thousand only), to the satisfaction of the Investigator/ SHO of the concerned
Police Station. The furnishing of bail bonds shall be deemed acceptance of all stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order:
a) The Attesting officer shall mention on the reverse page of personal bonds, the permanent address of the petitioner along with the phone number(s),
WhatsApp number (if any), email (if any), and details of personal bank account(s) (if available).
b) The petitioner shall join investigation as and when called by the Investigating officer or any superior officer. Whenever the investigation takes place
within the boundaries of the Police Station or the Police Post, then the petitioner shall not be called before 8 AM and shall be let off before 5 PM. The
petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree methods, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.
c) The petitioner shall join and cooperate in the investigation, and failure to do so shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the anticipatory
bail granted by the present order. (Kala Ram v. State of Punjab, 2018 (11) SCC 350).
d) 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 of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to
tamper with the evidence.
e) Once the trial begins, the appellant shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the concerned Court, on
the issuance of summons/warrants by such Court. The petitioner shall attend the trial on each date, unless exempted .
f) There shall be a presumption of proper service to the petitioner about the date of hearing in the concerned Court, even if it takes place through
SMS/ WhatsApp message/ E-Mail/ or any other similar medium, by the Court.
g) In the first instance, the Court shall issue summons and may inform the Petitioner about such summons through SMS/ WhatsApp message/ E-Mail.
h) In case the petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the specified date, then the concerned Court may issue bailable warrants, and to enable
the accused to know the date, the Court may, if it so desires, also inform the petitioner about such Bailable warrants through SMS/ WhatsApp
message/ E-Mail.
i) Finally, if the petitioner still fails to put in an appearance, then the concerned Court may issue Non-Bailable warrants to procure the petitioner's
presence and send the petitioner to the Judicial custody for a period for which the concerned Court may deem fit and proper.
j) In case of Non-appearance, then irrespective of the contents of the bail bonds, the petitioner undertakes to pay all the expenditure (only the principal
amount without interest), that the State might incur to produce him before such Court, provided such amount exceeds the amount recoverable after
forfeiture of the bail bonds, and also subject to the provisions of Sections 446 & 446-A of CrPC. The petitioner's failure to reimburse the State shall
entitle the trial Court to order the transfer of money from the bank account(s) of the petitioner. However, this recovery is subject to the condition that
the expenditure incurred must be spent to trace the petitioner and it relates to the exercise undertaken solely to arrest the petitioner in that FIR, and
during that voyage, the Police had not gone for any other purpose/function what so ever.
k) The petitioner shall intimate about the change of residential address and change of phone numbers, WhatsApp number, e-mail accounts, within
thirty days from such modification, to the police station of this FIR, and the concerned Court, if such stage arises.
l) The petitioner shall abstain from all criminal activities. If done, then while considering bail in the fresh FIR, the Court shall take into account that
even earlier, the Court had cautioned the accused not to do so.
m) During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats the offence or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is seven years or more,
then the State may move an appropriate application for cancellation of this bail.
n) In case of violation of any of the conditions as stipulated in this order, the State/Public Prosecutor may apply for cancellation of bail of the
petitioner. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall continue to remain in force throughout the trial.
14. The learned Counsel representing the accused and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all
conditions of this bail order to the petitioner, in vernacular and if not feasible, in Hindi or English.
15. In case the petitioner finds the 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 before 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.
16. In Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 7 SCC 731, the Constitutional Bench concluded by holding as follows:
“(2) As regards the second question referred to this court, it is held that the life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at
the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial. Again, if there
are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so.
(3) Nothing in Section 438 Cr. PC, compels or obliges courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of
statement of any witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc. While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court
has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence
(including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc. The courts would be justified - and ought to impose
conditions spelt out in Section 437 (3), Cr. PC [by virtue of Section 438 (2)]. The need to impose other restrictive conditions, would have to be judged
on a case by case basis, and depending upon the materials produced by the state or the investigating agency. Such special or other restrictive
conditions may be imposed if the case or cases warrant, but should not be imposed in a routine manner, in all cases. Likewise, conditions which limit
the grant of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they are required in the facts of any case or cases; however, such limiting conditions may not be
invariably imposed.â€
17. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency, from further investigation in accordance
with law.
18. The present bail order is only for the FIR mentioned above. It shall not be a blanket order of bail in any other case(s) registered against the
petitioner.
19. 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.
20. The Investigating Officer attesting the bonds shall not insist upon the certified copy of this order and shall download the same from the website of
this Court, or accept a copy attested by an Advocate, which shall be sufficient for the record. The Court Master shall handover an authenticated copy
of this order to the Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Advocate General if they ask for the same.
21. In return of the protection from incarceration for breaking the law, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable
behavior.
The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand closed.
