Gurjeet Singh vs. State Of Haryana And Anr.

That in order to further ascertain the amount of illegal extracon of material/minerals, a survey/measurement was carried out with the help of officers/officers of HARSAC, Gurugram and the Mining Dep9., Haryana, Panchkula M/s Tirupa Roadways at Ratewali, Panchkula, Haryana on 13.05.2022 at the site of Mine in presence of officers of District Mining and Department Mining & Geology, Haryana to verify as to how much volume of material has been extracted from the said river/mine. Vide report No. HARSAC/GGM/2022/203-205 dated 06.06.2022 of the Principal Scienst, HARSAC, Gurugram the total volume extracted was reported to be 47,66,079.68 MT (47.66 LTPA) which as per the terms and condions of tender comes out to be 5 - 6 mes more than the permissible range (which comes about only 14-16 MT within the period of starng of mining operaon of less than 2 years aAer the allotment of tender to the accused firm M/s Tripu Roadways.

That as per clause 21 (A) of the Specific Condions of Environment Clearance le9er No.J-11015/75/2017-IA. II(M) dated 21.02.2020 issued to M/s Tirupa Roadways, Ra9ewali, Panchkula, the permissible mining of river bed material (Boulder, Gravel and Sand) shall be limited to only 8.39 LTPA (8390000 MT) instead of requested 19 LTPA from an effecve minable area of 24.25 Ha with a maximum minable depth of 1.33 Meters from the original ground level.

That as established, the total volume of material extracted by the 2 JYOTI 2024.05.24 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

That in order to further ascertain the role of officers/officials of the mining department and to crack the whole conspiracy in the ma9er, a detailed report was sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Vigilance Department, Chandigarh for registraon of criminal case under secon 420, 379, 414 of IPC and secon 4/21 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulatory) Act 1957 (MMDR Act 1957) and 13 (1) (a) r/w 13(2) of PC Act against owners of the said firm and the unknown Government servants of Mining Department Panchkula office. On receipt of permission of the Competent Authority i.e. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Haryana, Vigilance Department vide order Endorsement No. 32/12/2022-4VI dated 16.08.2022 and further order issued vide endorsement 13345/1-1/SVB(H) dated 18.08.2022 of the DG/SVB/ Haryana an FIR No.09 dated 25.08.2022, under secon 420, 379, 414 of IPC and secon 4/21 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulatory) Act 1957 (MMDR Act 1957) and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(a) of PC Act has been registered in the present case against the owners of the said firm and the unknown public servants of Mining Department of Panchkula and invesgaon is going on.

That during invesgaon, record relang to execuon of mining contract executed between the Government of Haryana and M/s Tirupa Roadways and other relevant documents are obtained from the concerned which revealed that on 04.12.2018, the mining contract was executed between the Government of Haryana and M/s Tirupa Roadways through its authorized signatory Gurpreet Singh Sabarwal, (duly authorized by his father Sh. Lakhmir Singh bharwal as per the Power of A9orney dated 19.08.2017).”

Peoner’s counsel submits that the peoner had joined the invesgaon on 12.06.2023 and FIR has been registered aDer one year. He further submits that the peoner voluntarily complied with the condion menoned in the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by this Court, he had handed over the affidavits to the Invesgator and it is submiFed that he shall not claim such declaraon as self incriminaon, violaon 3 JYOTI 2024.05.24 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Peoner's counsel further prays for bail by imposing any stringent condions and is also voluntarily agreeable to the condion that ll the conclusion of the trial, the peoner shall keep only one mobile number, which is menoned in AADHAR card, if any, and within fiDeen days undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The peoner contends that custodial interrogaon and pre-trial incarceraon would cause an irreversible injusce to the peoner and family.

The state's counsel opposes the bail and states that considering the allegaons, the peoner's custodial interrogaon is necessary. The State’s counsel further contends that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.

In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a siLng Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquiFal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the juri icon of the Court etc.

While considering each bail peon of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the anthesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Informaon Reports, wherein the bail peoner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecuons resulng in acquiFal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecuon stands withdrawn, or prosecuon filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.

Given the penal provisions imposed and the sentence provided by the Legislature, the nature of allegaons and other factors and circumstances peculiar to this case, it 4 JYOTI 2024.05.24 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constuonal Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulave effect of the variety of circumstances jusfying 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 Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecuon 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 sasfacon for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situaons. The rejecon of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent applicaon. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing require, and a change in the fact situaon. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noceably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggesve of fleeing from jusce or thwarng the course of jusce or creang other troubles in the shape of repeang offences or inmidang witnesses and the like by the peoner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the peoner to avoid the course of jusce and must weigh it when considering the queson of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikan Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the negave criteria necessitang that course. In Prahlad Singh Bha v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other consideraons. In Dataram Singh v State of UFar Pradesh, 2018:INSC:107 [Para 7], (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is enrely within the discreon of the judge hearing the maFer and though that discreon is unfeFered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, condions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.

The possibility of the accused influencing the invesgaon, tampering with evidence, inmidang witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing jusce, can be taken care of by imposing elaborave and stringent condions. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of 5 JYOTI 2024.05.24 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Without commenng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons menoned above, the peoner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and condions, which shall be over and above and irrespecve of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. 14. In Madhu Tanwar v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21], CRM-M- 27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed, [10] The exponenal growth in technology and arficial intelligence has transformed idenficaon techniques remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recognion are incredibly sophiscated and pervasive. Impersonaon, as we know it tradionally, 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 jusce, then in such cases, appropriate condions 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. [21] In this era when the knowledge revoluon has just begun, to keep pace with exponenal and unimaginable changes the technology has brought to human lives, it is only fiLng that the dependence of the accused on surety is minimized by giving alternave opons. Furthermore, there should be no insistence to provide permanent addresses when people either do not have permanent abodes or intend to re-locate.

Given above, provided the peoner is not required in any other case, the peoner shall be released on bail in the FIR caponed above, in the following terms: (a). Peoner to furnish 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 sasfacon of the concerned Invesgator/SHO, before whom the bonds are required to be furnished. When the bonds are to be furnished before a Judicial Magistrate, then in case of the non-availability of the 6 JYOTI 2024.05.24 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

The peoner is directed to join the invesgaon within seven days and also as and when called by the Invesgator. The peoner shall be in deemed custody for Secon 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The peoner shall join the invesgaon as and when called by the Invesgang Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate with the invesgaon at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecuon to seek cancellaon of the bail. Whenever the invesgaon occurs within the police premises, the peoner shall not be called before 8 AM, let off before 6 PM, and shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

The peoner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, 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.

Peoner to comply with their undertaking made in the bail peon, made before this court through counsel as reflected at the beginning of this order or in earlier orders. If the peoner fails to comply with any of such undertakings, then on this ground alone, the bail might be canceled, and the vicm/complainant may file any such applicaon for the cancellaon of bail, and the State shall file the said applicaon.

The peoner is directed not to keep more than one prepaid SIM, i.e., one pre- paid mobile phone number, ll the conclusion of the trial; however, this restricon is only on prepaid SIMs [mobile numbers] and not on post-paid connecons or landline numbers. The peoner must comply with this condion within fiDeen days of release from today. The concerned DySP shall also direct all the telecom service providers to deacvate all prepaid SIM cards and prepaid mobile numbers issued to the peoner, except the one that is menoned as the primary number/ default number linked with the AADHAAR card and further that ll the no objecon from the concerned SHO, the mobile service providers shall not issue second pre-paid SIM/ mobile number in the peoner’s name. Since, as on date, in India, there are only four prominent mobile service providers, namely BSNL, Airtel, Vodafone-Idea, and Reliance Jio, any other telecom service provider are directed to comply with the direcons of the concerned Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police, issued in this regard and disable all prepaid mobile phone numbers issued in the name of the peoner, except the main number/default number linked with AADHAR, by taking such informaon from the peoner’s AADHAR details or any other source, for which they shall be legally entled by this order. This condion shall connue ll the compleon of the trial or closure of 8 JYOTI 2024.05.24 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

During the trial's pendency, if the peoner repeats or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condion as spulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for cancellaon of this bail. It shall further be open for any invesgang agency to bring it to the noce of the Court seized of the subsequent applicaon that the accused was earlier cauoned not to indulge in criminal acvies. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and aDer that in Secon 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not canceled due to non-appearance or breach of condions.

In return for the protecon from incarceraon, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior. It is clarified that in case the peoner does not mend his ways and repeats the offence or indulge in criminal behaviour, then in all future maers, the concerned courts shall keep it as a factor that this court had afforded a final opportunity to the peoner to reform and live a normal life but did not improve.

The condions menoned above imposed by this Court are to endeavour that the accused does not repeat the offence and to provide an opportunity to the vicm to consider legal remedies for recovery of the amount. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Peon (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 condions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proporonal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail condions, must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condions that would result in the deprivaon of rights and liberes must be eschewed.”

Any Advocate for the peoner and the Officer in whose presence the peoner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all condions of this bail order in any language that the peoner understands.

If the peoner finds bail condion(s) as violang fundamental, human, or other 9 JYOTI 2024.05.24 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the invesgang agency from further invesgaon as per law.

In case the Invesgator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Staon arraigns another secon of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new secon prescribes maximum sentence which is not greater than the secons menoned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added secon(s). However, suppose the newly inserted secons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the secons menoned above, then, in that case, the Invesgator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the peoner noce of a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

Any observaon made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

There would be no need for a cerfied copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Peoner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a9est it to be a. In case the a9esng officer wants to verify the authencity, such an officer can also verify its authencity and may download and use the downloaded copy for a9esng bonds. Pe..on allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applicaons, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 22.05.2024 Jyo-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 10 JYOTI 2024.05.24 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.