In CRM-M-16521-2023-PUNJ HC- Bail conditions imposed by Court are to endeavour that accused tries to reform & does not repeat offence, says P&H HC while granting bail to DGM accused of demanding & accepting bribe of Rs 50,000 to accept sub-standard food grains
Justice Anoop Chitkara [26-04-2023]

Read Order: RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AC-I 

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, April 26, 2023: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed a bail petition instituted by the  petitioner, who was  incarcerated in a  case registered  under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and 120-B IPC on the allegations of demanding and accepting bribe of Rs 50,000 to accept sub-standard food grains.

A Single -Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara allowed the present petition by observing that  that the  petitioner in the instant case  made  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. 

Petitioner's counsel prayed for bail by imposing any stringent conditions, including declaring his assets as well as of his spouse. The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 

CBI opposed the same.

After considering the submissions, the Court noted on January 10, 2023, based on a prior information, the CBI laid a trap, and apprehended the accused Rajiv Kumar Mishra, DGM, Quality Control, FCI, while demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 50,000/- from a Miller Ravinder Singh Khera. The accused Rajeev Kumar Mushtaq and Ravindra Singh were arrested from the spot whereas the accused petitioner Rajeev Kumar Mishra was arrested subsequently. 

In furtherance of the same, the Court noted that the petitioner was in custody since January 10, 2023 .  Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability of further pretrial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Thus, the previous criminal history of the petitioner was not being considered strictly at this stage as a factor for denying bail, the Court noted. 

Reference was placed on the case of  Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab,  wherein, a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail.

Further in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 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 the case of   Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh,  the Apex 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. 

In view of the above stated provisions, the Court without commenting on the case's merits, and keeping in view the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, observed that the petitioner made a case for bail, subject to the certain 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.

In pursuance of such observations, the petition was accordingly allowed.