Ajit @ Ajeet v. State of Haryana and Anr

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta/on Sec/ons 608 30.08.2024 Barwala, Dis/. Hisar 115, 126, 351 (3) of BNS, 2023 (Sec!on 117 (2) of BNS added later on)

¶1The pe!!oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap!oned above has come up before this Court under Sec!on 482 of Bhara!ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking an!cipatory bail.

¶2In paragraph 12 of the bail pe!!on, the pe!!oner is also a previous convict in another criminal case. The detail of the same is men!oned herein below: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Sta/on

¶186 16.03.2012 323, 325, 506 IPC Barwala

¶3The facts of the case are being taken from the FIR, which reads as follows: "Statement of Budhram son of Inder Singh cast-SC resident of Ravidas Nagar ward no.19 Barwala aged 68 years Mobile No. 98127-xxxxx stated that I am a resident of the above address and due to illness, I stay at home and I have less visibility. On dated 29.08.24, at around 2 pm, I was going towards the railway line for a walk. On the way, I met Ajit son of Shamsher resident of Ravidas Nagar Ward No. 19 Barwala and he blocked my way and started abusing me. He was drunk. Meanwhile, Ajit suddenly hit me on the head with an iron rod in his hand. I asked why are you order/judgment. 1 hi1ng me, he said that today I will kill you and then he hit me again on the head. When I screamed loudly, people nearby came, he le2 me and ran away and he said that today you are saved, next 3me I will kill you. Then I fainted. People nearby informed my home and my family took me to CHC Barwala in an ambulance. Where the doctor referred me to MAMC Agroha. Where I am undergoing treatment now, Ajeet son of Shamsher without any reason blocked my way and beat me up and threatened to kill me. Strict legal ac3on should be taken against him. I am registering this statement in the presence of my son Ajmer. I have wri6en the statement; it has been heard which is fine. xxx xxx"

¶4The pe

oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera on would cause an irreversible injus ce to the pe

oner and his family.

¶5State counsel adopts the reply filed by counsel before the trial Court which is annexed with the pe

on as Annexure P-2. He opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶6Although, there is prima-facie sufficient evidence that the pe

oner had assaulted but this Court has to way the allega ons with the injuries received, the weapons possessed and that the pe

oner is a first offender, it is neither a case of custodial interroga on nor pre-trial incarcera on. However, it is clarified that if the pe

oner violates any of the bail condi on, it shall be permissible for the complainant to file an applica on for cancella on of bail before the trial Court and the trial Court itself shall be competent to add further condi ons or to cancel the bail.

¶7Pre-trial incarcera on should not be a replica of post-convic on sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecu on or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of an cipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not jus fy custodial interroga on or pre-trial incarcera on.

¶8Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega ons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus fiability for custodial interroga on or the pre-trial incarcera on at this stage.

¶9Without 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. This order shall come into force from the me it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶10Given 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 subject to furnishing bonds to the sa!sfac!on of the Arres!ng Officer, and if the ma/er is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep!ng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be sa!sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶11While furnishing a personal bond, the pe!!oner shall men!on the following personal iden!fica!on details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the a/es!ng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶12This order is subject to the pe!!oner's complying with the following terms. The pe!!oner shall abide by all statutory bond condi!ons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pe!!oner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

¶13The pe33oner is directed to join the inves3ga3on within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Inves3gator. The pe!!oner shall be in deemed custody for Sec!on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Sec!on 23 of BSA, 2023. The pe!!oner shall join the inves!ga!on as and when called by the Inves!ga!ng Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the inves!ga!on at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecu!on will be open to seeking cancella!on of the bail. During the inves!ga!on, the pe!!oner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶14Given the nature of the allega!ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe!!oner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the vic!m un!l the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. This Court is imposing this condi!on to rule out any a/empt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the vic!m. Reference be made to order/judgment. 3 Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Inves ga on, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna Bha/ v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

¶15Given the background of allega ons against the pe

oner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, and incapacita ng the accused would be one of the primary op ons un l the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acqui/al. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restric on is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanc on]. Given the nature of the allega ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe

oner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammuni on, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fiNeen days of release from prison and inform the Inves gator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pe

oner shall be en tled to renew and reclaim them in case of acqui/al in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restric ng firearms would ins ll confidence in the vic m(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repea ng the offense.

¶16The condi ons men oned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. 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."

¶17In case the Inves gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta on arraigns another sec on of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new sec on prescribes a maximum sentence that 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.

¶18This bail is condi onal, and the founda onal condi on is that if the pe

oner

indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an applica on for cancella on of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail.

¶19Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶20A cer fied copy of this order would not be needed 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 a/est it to be a true copy. If the a/es ng officer wants to verify its authen city, such an officer can also verify its authen city and may download and use the downloaded copy for a/es ng bonds.

¶21Pe//on allowed in terms men oned above. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

27.01.2025 Jyo -II

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 15.01.2025 Pronounced on: 27.01.2025 Ajit @ Ajeet ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Aanand Kumar Maurya, Advocate, for the pe!!oner. Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, DAG, Haryana. ****