Evaluate gravity of offence while giving bail: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, July 9

Making it clear that a judge was required to decide a bail plea after taking into consideration the role of the accused, his antecedents and the gravity of the offence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that an order passed by a Gurugram Judge without following this procedure was against the settled norms.

“It was a well-settled procedure of law that while passing an order or a judgment, a judge is required to notice the facts of the FIR, the role of the person seeking bail/anticipatory bail, his antecedents and the gravity of offence committed and then form an opinion in the light of the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments regarding granting or dismissing the bail/anticipatory bail,” Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan asserted.

Referring to the lower court’s order, Justice Sangwan asserted the Additional Sessions Judge noticed the offence under Section 395 of the IPC (dacoity) was serious offence. As such, custodial interrogation was required. On the face of it, this order was passed against the settled norms.

Justice Sangwan also asked the Director of Chandigarh Judicial Academy to look into the matter and issue appropriate directions to the judicial officers about the manner by which the facts in an FIR were required to be reflected before forming an opinion whether bail/anticipatory bail was to be granted or declined.

The matter was brought to Justice Sangwan’s notice after an accused sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered on July 14, 2020, under Sections 395 and 34 of the IPC at Sector-56 police station in Gurugram.

The FIR was registered at the instance of a pizza delivery boy. He had alleged that five boys present in a house where he went for delivery started abusing him by saying that he was “very late”.

They snatched the pizza and his motorcycle. By the time the police reached the spot on his information, four boys had fled with the motorcycle. One of the boys arrested at the spot made a disclosure statement.

Justice Sangwan observed it was not disputed that the allegations were regarding snatching of a pizza and the motorcycle, which were recovered from the already-arrested. Before parting with the case, Justice Sangwan added the petitioner would be released on interim bail in the event of arrest subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of arresting/investigating officer.