Mukesh v. State of Haryana
Case Details
CRM-M-37169-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CRM-M-37169-2024 Reserved on: 15.01.2025 Pronounced on: 27.01.2025 Mukesh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen K. Sheoran, DAG, Haryana. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Facts
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 648 01.11.2022 Hisar Civil Lines, 34, 342, 365 & 506 IPC and District Hisar 12 of POCSO Act, 67E of Information Technology Act 2008 (During investigation 120B & 201 IPC added) 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail. 2. As per paragraph 9 of the bail petition as well as para 9 of the reply, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. 1 848 2 3 4 5 6 7 332 418 008 276 175 180 Date 2022 2023 2023 2024 Offenses 323, 34, 341, 506 IPC and 3 of SCST Act 323, 325, 341 & 506 IPC 323, 34, 506 IPC and 3 of SCST Act 379-A & 34 IPC 08.07.2019 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC 09.04.2021 147, 149, 323, 325, 506 IPC Police Station Azad Nagar, Hisar Azad Nagar Hisar Azad Nagar, Hisar District Pataudi, Gurugram Azad Nagar, Hisar Azad Nagar, Hisar 10.04.2021 25/54/29 of Arms Act Azad Nagar, Hisar ANJU RANI 2025.01.27 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-37169-2024 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State as well as the translated copy of the FIR (Annexure P-1). 2 4. The victim informed that he is a boy aged 17 years. On 27.10.2022, he had received a phone call from Mohit @ Sukha and he asked him to meet him regarding a case lodged by R against Yogesh Nain and Yogesh Sheoran. When he reached at the gate of Haryana Agriculture University, then 10-15 boys were already drinking and having eight gandasa with them. They took him towards Jawahar Nagar, Hisar and made him sit on a bullet motorcycle and took him near Satrod canal. They took all his clothes and made him nude. Subsequently all of them made a video of the victim when he was nude and made it viral. Subsequently they threatened him on dire consequences in case he complains to anyone. 5. Based on such information, the FIR was registered. The petitioner-Mukesh was arrested on 31.05.2023, based on production warrant because he was already confined in jail and his custody in this case is approximately 01 year & 08 months. 6. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 7. 8. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. Although the petitioner has massive criminal history but in the present case, there is no allegation of any assault, physical or sexual and it shows that the petitioner and his accomplices were not intending to outrage the modesty of the victim or to commit any sexual assault with him. But had confined their action by making him nude and then
Legal Reasoning
taking his video and circulating on social media. Although there is prima facie evidence regarding aforesaid acts but the petitioner is already in custody and further custody would not be justified. 9. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. As per paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 31.05.2023 and his custody in this case is approximately 01 year & 08 months. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 10. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. ANJU RANI 2025.01.27 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-37169-2024 11. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 3 12. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 13. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 14. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the victim until the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. This Court is imposing this condition to rule out any attempt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the victim. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna Bhatt v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230. 15. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the victim, and their family members, as well as the members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would ANJU RANI 2025.01.27 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3 4 CRM-M-37169-2024 instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 16. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.” 17. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 18. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 19. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 20. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
Decision
21. disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 27.01.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: ANJU RANI 2025.01.27 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 4