Punjab & Haryana HC imposes stringent pre-arrest bail conditions in case of trespass & theft

Read Order: Rakesh Tyagi and Another v. State of Haryana and Another 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 18,  2022:  While allowing the petition for grant of anticipatory bail, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held 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 elaborate and stringent conditions. 

The Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara was dealing with a petition for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in relation to an FIR registered under Sections 380 and 457 of Indian Penal Code,1860.

The Court at the outset elaborated upon the jurisprudence developed for grant of bail in form various decisions of the Supreme Court. The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, wherein it was held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. 

Another case which was referred to was of the Apex Court in  Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, wherein it was held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. Further, reference was made to the case of the Top Court in Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi,  wherein it was opined that while exercising power under Section 438 of the Code, the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual’s right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. 

Coming to the factual aspects of this case, the Court adjudged without commenting on the merit of the case that the petitioners being first time offenders, made a case for grant bail however, this relief was made subject to certain terms and conditions which were over and above the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of Cr.P.C., 1973. 

On arrest, the petitioners were directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond of a certain sum with one surety. The attesting officer was to ensure if the surety was capable to procure accused person’s presence when needed. The address and contact details of the accused were directed to be taken and they were ordered to desist from inducing or threatening witnesses. 

The Court also ordered the petitioners to declare details of all assets held either individually or jointly to the investigating agencies and also to the complainant- victim. All weapons, firearms, ammunition, if any along with the arms license were directed to be surrendered. 

Apart from the eventuality of violation of any of the bail conditions, or the commission or repetition of any offence,  the bail bonds were directed to continue to remain in force throughout the trial and after that in terms of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners were given liberty to apply for deletion or modification of any of these conditions in case they were found to be violating any fundamental, human or other rights. The petition was thus allowed.