Possibility of accused influencing investigation or likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions:P&H HC

Read Order: Raju Bhaiya v. State of Punjab 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, December 6,2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently held that in case the petitioners find the bail conditions as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such terms, the petitioners may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to 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.

The Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara observed 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. 

In this case, the petitioner who was  since May 19,2020 and had come up before this Court seeking regular bail.

It was alleged that the complainant along with his brother owns 10 acres of land in the village. Out of the said land, they had sold a few acres of land to Karaj Singh. After that, they had entered into an agreement regarding remaining land in favour of Karaj Singh in December, 2016. Karaj Singh kept on extending the dates of agreement. After that, both the brothers had given the land to Karaj Singh on contract for cultivation but for the last about three years, he did not pay any due amount.

Consequently, they asked him not to cultivate the land. Subsequently, Karaj Singh moved an application against the complainant and his brother. Later,the complainant and his brother came to know that Karaj Singh had again started cultivating the land. On this, the complainant, his wife, son and brother reached the spot. At that point of time, white colour Bolero stopped there, from which Karaj Singh, who was armed with 12 bore gun, Rashpal Singh @ Daula armed with pistol, Harjit Kaur wife of Heera Singh, empty handed, Ranjit Kaur wife of Karaj Singh and Ranjit Kaur wife of Gurdev Singh, got down. The petitioner also reached there on a Tractor along with 2-3 unknown persons. 

A gun shot was fired which hit the son of the complainant. After that, they raised hue and cry and the accused persons ran away along with their weapons. The complainant party took the injured to the hospital, however he expired. 

Petitioner’s counsel vehemently argued that the accused/petitioner had no role in the alleged occurrence and he did not use the firearms.

The Bench observed that as per the contents of the FIR, it was amply clear that two groups of people had reached the spot. One came in Bolero, from which Karaj Singh got down and as such, the occupants of Bolero were likely to be aware that Karaj Singh was carrying a 12 bore gun. On the contrary, the petitioner came on a Tractor. Although, a perusal of the FIR, prima facie revealed that both the vehicles reached at the spot at the same time. However, this fact would be subject to evidence and cross examination. 

According to the High Court,it is a common knowledge that the speed of the Tractor is much less in comparison to the speed of Bolero. It would imply that the Tractor started earlier than the Bolero. Given this, the petitioner was most likely to be not aware that Karaj Singh would be armed with a gun. 

“Although, these analyses are for the purpose of deciding this bail application because this is subject to investigation and evidence led in the trial. However, for the purpose of deciding this bail application, it is difficult to assume that the petitioner-Raju Bhaiya would be aware of the intention of Karaj Singh and other occupants of Bolero. Given above, the petitioner makes out a case for bail”, said the Bench.

Justice Chitkara mentioned that the petitioner is a citizen of India and it cannot be assumed at this stage that he would not attend the trial. However, it was clarified by the Bench that in case the petitioner fails to turn up and does not attend the trial then on this ground alone, this bail would be liable to be cancelled.

Resultantly, the Court  granted bail to the petitioner, subject to strict terms and conditions, which would be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of Cr.P.C., 1973.