In CRA-S-1024-2023-PUNJ HC- Accused is first-time offender and needs opportunity to course-correct: P&H HC grants bail to man booked under SC/ST Act
Justice Anoop Chitkara [12-04-2023]

Read Order: SACHIN VS STATE OF HARYANA 

LE Correspondent

Chandigarh, April 21, 2023:  The Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed an appeal preferred by the appellant under section 14-A of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the order of dismissal of bail.
 

A  Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara opined that the appellant in the instant case made a case for bail, subject to some 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.
 

The appellant had filed a bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, which was dismissed on March 28, 2023.  

The allegations were of beating and abusing the people belonging to the scheduled castes by using the derogatory words prohibited under the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The counsel for the accused prayed for bail by imposing stringent conditions. The appellant’s contention was that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the appellant and family. 

 The State opposed the bail plea.

On prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations and other factors peculiar to this case, the Bench said, “there would be no justifiability for custodial or pretrial incarceration at this stage. Furthermore, the appellant was a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a prima facie perusal of paragraph 5 of the bail appeal needs consideration for bail”.

Reference was made to the judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, wherein , the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. 

Another reference was made to the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, wherein,  a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation.

In view of such observations, the Court also stated that 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. 

Thus, without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the Court observed that the appellant in the instant case made a case for bail, subject to certain terms and conditions.