Suraj Parkash v. State of Haryana

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

28.05.2024 City Ratia, Distt. Fatehabad 457, 380, 411 IPC

¶1The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC/482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

¶2In paragraph 7 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "2. That the brief facts of the case are that on 28.05.2024, E/ASI/HC Partap Singh along with EASI/HC Mahender Singh was present at Bus stand Ratia for patrolling. In the meantime, complainant Prince Singla met him and presented an application regarding theft in his shop to the effect that "he has a shop in the name of 'Masterji Electric Store', Budhlada Road, near Bus Stand Ratia. Complainant further averred in his complaint that in the night of 27.05.2024, a theft was committed by breaking the locks of the shop and bags of copper wire weighing 150 kgs., reel of new wire, copper cable and cash amounting to Rs.17/18,000/- by breaking the cash box (Galla) were stolen. DVR of camera was also taken away. There was a theft earlier also on 13.11.2022, which was got registered earlier. Complainant prayed for tracing out the thieves and recovery may kindly be got effected". On this application, present case was registered under sections 380, 457 of IPC and investigation was carried out."

¶4The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows: "14 A. Role of petitioner

(i) There are serious allegations against the present petitioner-accused as the present petitioner had purchased stolen copper wires from co-accused Neelam for sum of Rs.50,000/-.

(ii) That the petitioner's name has figured out in the disclosure statement (Annexure R-2) of co-accused Neelam. As per disclosure statement of co-accused Neelam, she had purchased stolen copper wires from co-accused Raju and Kuldeep for Rs.48,000/- and further sold the same to petitioner-accused Suraj Parkash for sum of Rs.50000/-. B. The evidence against the petitioner after joining investigation:

(i) That on 27.01.2025, petitioner joined the investigation of the present case and formally arrested in the present case in accordance with law. But petitioner has not cooperated the Investigating Agency and not disclosed anything about the present case. Petitioner only disclosed that co-accused Neelam had never sold the stolen wires to him." REASONING:

¶7Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration.

¶8Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 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.

¶9The investigation indicates that the petitioner is not the main accused, so the petitioner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other co-accused with a higher role.

¶10Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶11While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the attesting 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 petitioner's complying with the following terms.

¶13The petitioner is directed to join the investigation 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 Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶14The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner 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.

¶15In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than 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.

¶16This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶17Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶18A certified copy of this order would not be needed 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. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

¶19Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

08.04.2025 Jyoti-II

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 08.04.2025 Suraj Parkash ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, DAG, Haryana. ****