Vicky Singh v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

20.07.2024 Jhunir, District Mansa 379, IPC

¶1The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

¶2In paragraph 8 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "(i) Perusal of case file and related record reveals that initially application No. ONLINE PGD NO.381688 dated 12-07-2024 moved by an Navu son of Ramesh resident of Jeevan Singh Nagar, Bir Talab, Police Station Sadar Bathinda, was received in the District Police Office Mansa. Facts of the complaint stated case as that Airtel Limited is company registered under the Indian companies Act 1956 and also registered under the Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Union of India, as a Telecom Service Provider and as such, That Airtel has a ground base/roof top tower V.P.O BHAMME KALAN. TEHSIL SARDULGARH. That on 16-04-2024 our ZTM have received site down information while reaching at site, the local technician have found that the below material were stolen and wires/cables connected to the stolen equipment were cut loose. The complete lost of equipments/assets lost in the above incident are as under. Date of incident 16-apr-24, Site ID=Bham77.

a. TOCO ID-IN-1027132, Equipment Description=AZNA, Qty =1, Item code=NCLHID076, Rs 58919, total = 58919."

¶4The 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.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows: "ROLE OF THE PETITIONER PETITIONER AND EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER:-

From the investigation of present case/FIR and supplementary statement of complainant Navu, it was ascertained that at the time of commission of theft by accused persons, Vicky Singh (petitioner)was also accompanying them and Vicky Singh (petitioner)has also participated in commission of theft and this facts duly stands proved from the supplementary statement of the complainant Navu dated 27.07.2024."

¶7The petitioner is eighteen years of age, which is the formative years of one's life, and he has clean antecedents.

¶8Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration.

¶9The Police did not arrest the petitioner; if they intended to arrest the petitioner, it was not impossible. A perusal of the reply does not point out the steps taken to arrest the accused.

¶10Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. 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. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶11The petitioner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other co-accused with a higher role.

¶12Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶13While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶14This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.

¶15The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶16The 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.

¶17In 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.

¶18This 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.

¶19Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶20A 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.

¶21Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA)

JUDGE

29.11.2024

No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.39810 of 2024 Reserved on: 12.11.2024 Pronounced on: 29.11.2024 Vicky Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhdev Singh, A.A.G., Punjab. ****