CRM-M No. 26197 of 2024 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2024

FIR No. Dated Police Sta(cid:20)on Sec(cid:20)ons 302

31.10.2023 Sadar Narwana, District Jind 3, 7 Essen-al Commodi-es Act, 1955 and Sec-ons 34, 420, IPC 1860 and Clause 2-H, Q(i), 19, 20, 21, 28, 5,8, 9, 10, 11 Fer-lizer Controller Order 1985; Sec-ons 13, 20 of Insec-cide Act, 1968 (Insec-cide Rule 1971, rule 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 27); Sec-ons 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 Seed Act, 1966; Sec-on 63 Copyright Act, 1957; Sec-ons 467, 468, 471, 420, 201 IPC 1860 were added later on

1. The pe--oner incarcerated in the FIR cap-oned above has come up before this Court under Sec-on 439 CrPC seeking bail.

2. In paragraph 11 of the bail pe--on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. Pe--oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi-ons. The pe--oner contends that the pre-trial incarcera-on would cause an irreversible injus-ce to the pe--oner and family.

5. The State opposes bail. The prosecu-on case is being taken from the FIR (Annexure P-1) based on a complaint filed by SDO, Agriculture, Narwana. One Narinder informed the SDO, Agriculture, Narwana, that Narinder has IFFCO DAP, which is fake. According to that Sonia Puri 2024.07.17 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 CRM-M-26197-2024 2 informa-on, the complainant visited Narinder's house and no-ced 50 bags, of which 01 was lying open. At that stage, farmer complained in wri-ng that the pe--oner-Jitender sells manure made by IFFCO. ADer that, he contacted Narinder to purchase 60 bags of DAP manure. Subsequently, the pe--oner delivered 60 bags of DAP manure in a pickup vehicle. When they were unloading the fer-lizer, Narinder became suspicious about the genuineness of the manure, and he informed the police. The pick-up vehicle had brought 60 bags, of which 51 were unloaded, and 09 were in the pickup vehicle. Subsequently, based on this informa-on, present FIR was registered, Sushil and Jitender, for selling duplicate fer-lizers, were arrested, and 09 bags were also recovered and they are in judicial custody since 03.11.2023. As per the affidavit filed by Superintendent Jail Jind, dated 01.07.2024, the pe--oner’s custody is 07 months and 29 days, which means that as of this date, the pe--oner has undergone more than 08 months of custody.

6. Given the pre-trial custody of the pe--oner, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega-ons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus-fiability for further pre-trial incarcera-on at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and condi-ons men-oned in this order. Furthermore, the pe--oner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to correct the course. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraph 3 of the bail pe--on needs considera-on for bail.

7. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Cons-tu-onal Bench of the Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumula-ve effect of the variety of circumstances jus-fying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18), a three-member Bench of the Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non- bailable offenses are en-tled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecu-on 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 sa-sfac-on for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situa-ons. The rejec-on of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent applica-on. The courts can release on bail, provided the prevailing circumstances require a change in the fact situa-on. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court no-ceably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be briefly put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances sugges-ve of fleeing from jus-ce or thwar-ng the course of jus-ce or crea-ng other troubles in the shape of repea-ng offenses or in-mida-ng witnesses and the like by the pe--oner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that Sonia Puri 2024.07.17 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CRM-M-26197-2024 3 the gravity of the offense involved is likely to induce the pe--oner to avoid the course of jus-ce and must be weighed when considering the ques-on of jail. Also, there is the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikan- Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), the Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the nega-ve criteria necessita-ng that course. In Prahlad Singh Bha- v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, the Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considera-ons. In Dataram Singh v State of UPar Pradesh, 2018:INSC:107 [Para 7], (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), the Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is en-rely within the discre-on of the judge hearing the maPer and though that discre-on is unfePered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, condi-ons for the bail grant ought not to be so strict as to make it incapable of compliance, making it illusory.

8. The possibility of the accused influencing the inves-ga-on, tampering with evidence, in-mida-ng witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing jus-ce can be resolved by imposing elabora-ve and stringent condi-ons. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92], (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Cons-tu-onal Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restric-ve condi-ons.

9. Without commen-ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men-oned above, the pe--oner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and condi-ons, which shall be over and above and irrespec-ve of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. This order shall come into force from the -me it is uploaded on the official webpage of this Court.

10. In Madhu Tanwar and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21], CRM-M-27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed, [10] The exponen-al growth in technology and ar-ficial intelligence has transformed iden-fica-on techniques remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recogni-on are incredibly sophis-cated and pervasive. Impersona-on, as we know it tradi-onally, has virtually become impossible. Thus, the remedy lies that whenever a judge or an officer believes that the accused might be a flight risk or has a history of fleeing from jus-ce, then in such cases, appropriate condi-ons can be inserted that all the expenditure that shall be incurred to trace them, shall be recovered from such person, and the State shall have a lien over their assets to make good the loss. Sonia Puri 2024.07.17 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CRM-M-26197-2024 4 [21] In this era when the knowledge revolu-on has just begun, to keep pace with exponen-al and unimaginable changes that technology has brought to human lives, it is only fiTng that the dependence of the accused on surety is minimized by giving alterna-ve op-ons. Furthermore, there should be no insistence on providing permanent addresses when people either do not have permanent abodes or intend to relocate.

11. Given above, provided the pe--oner is not required in any other case, the pe--oner shall be released on bail in the FIR cap-oned above in the following terms: (a). Pe--oner will furnish a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/); AND (b) To give one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the sa-sfac-on of the concerned court, and in case of non-availability, to any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep-ng the surety, the concerned officer/court must be sa-sfied that if the accused fails to appear in court, such surety can produce the accused. OR (b). The pe--oner will hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit of Rs. Ten thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automa-c renewal of the principal and the interest rever-ng to the linked account, made in favor of the ‘Chief Judicial Magistrate’ of the concerned district, or blocking the amount above in favor of the concerned ‘Chief Judicial Magistrate.’ Said fixed deposit or blocking funds can be from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or from any of the well-established and stable private sector banks. Suppose the bankers are unwilling to make a Fixed Deposit in such an eventuality. In that case, it shall be permissible for the pe--oner to prepare an account payee demand draD favoring the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for a similar amount. (c). Such court shall have a lien over the funds un-l the case's closure or discharged by subs-tu-on, or up to the expiry of the period men-oned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the en-re amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor. (d). The pe--oner must also execute a bond for aPendance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presenta-on of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declara-ons made in the bail pe--on and all other s-pula-ons, terms, and condi-ons of sec-on 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and of this bail Sonia Puri 2024.07.17 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CRM-M-26197-2024 5 order. (e). While furnishing personal bond, the pe--oner shall men-on the following personal iden-fica-on details:

1. AADHAR number

2. Passport number (If available) when the aPes-ng officer/court thinks it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

3. Mobile number (If available)

4. E-Mail id (If available)

12. The pe--oner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, or make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.

13. During the trial's pendency, if the pe--oner repeats or commits any offense where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condi-on as s-pulated in this order, it shall always be permissible for the respondent to apply for cancella-on of this bail. It shall further be open for any inves-ga-ng agency to bring it to the no-ce of the Court seized of the subsequent applica-on that the accused was cau-oned not to indulge in criminal ac-vi-es earlier. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and in Sec-on 437-A of the Cr.P.C. if not canceled due to non- appearance or breach of condi-ons.

14. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the inves-ga-ng agency from further inves-ga-on as per law.

15. In case the Inves-gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta-on arraigns another sec-on of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new sec-on prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sec-ons men-oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec-on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec-ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec-ons men-oned above; then, in that case, the Inves-gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe--oner no-ce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

16. Any observa-on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the Sonia Puri 2024.07.17 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CRM-M-26197-2024 6 case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

17. the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior in return for protec-on from further incarcera-on.

18. There would be no need for a cer(cid:16)fied copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe(cid:16)(cid:16)oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a(cid:31)est it to be a true copy. If the a(cid:31)es(cid:16)ng officer wants to verify the authen(cid:16)city, such an officer can also verify it and may download and use the downloaded copy for a(cid:31)es(cid:16)ng bonds. Pe(cid:20)(cid:20)on allowed in the terms above. All pending applica-ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 16 July, 2024 Sonia Puri Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. Sonia Puri 2024.07.17 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6