The Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket has noticed that instructions handed by the Supreme Court docket in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar with respect to process for arrest shall be relevant to offences punishable with lower than or as much as seven years of imprisonment.

The bench comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara whereas coping with an anticipatory bail plea in an FIR registered below Sections 406 and 420 IPC, noticed,

Thus, instructions handed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, (Para 13), apply to this petition, whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court docket directed all of the State Governments to instruct its cops to not arrest the accused robotically when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a time period which can be lower than seven years or which can lengthen to seven years; whether or not with or with out high-quality.

It added that the petitioner-accused, who was a primary time offender, must be granted a possibility to course-correct. The courtroom additional noticed that the opportunity of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with proof, intimidating witnesses, and the probability of fleeing justice, will be handled by imposing elaborative and stringent circumstances.

After counting on the judgement of Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, and Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013)15 SCC 570, Para 11 the courtroom mentioned it will possibly impose circumstances to make sure an uninterrupted and unhampered investigation.

Court docket additional noticed that whereas granting bail with sureties, the “Court docket” and the “Arresting Officer” ought to give a option to the accused to furnish surety bonds in varied on-line and offline methods out there, or can create a lien over his checking account as has been held within the case of Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana.

It shall be the entire discretion of the applicant to decide on between surety bonds and stuck deposits. It shall even be open for the applicant to use for substitution of fastened deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa.

Court docket concluded by stating that the petitioner shall be in deemed custody as per Part 27 of the Indian Proof Act and he shall be part of the investigation as and when referred to as by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer. Failure to company with the investigation will likely be a floor to hunt cancellation of the bail.

If the petitioner fails to ahead full particulars of checking account together with different related info to the Investigator/SHO and the complainant/sufferer(s), then on this floor alone the bail may be cancelled, the courtroom added.

In accordance, the petition was allowed.

Learn Arnesh Kumar pointers right here.

Case Title : Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana

Click on Right here To Learn/Obtain Order


Supply hyperlink