Sunil @ Sonu vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Sunil @ Sonu, approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Section 438 of the CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. The FIR in question was registered on January 28, 2020, at Police Station Hodal, District Palwal, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 506, and 120-B of the IPC. The allegations pertained to the issuance of forged bills without a GST number or any relevant information. The petitioner declared no prior criminal antecedents. The State and the complainant opposed the bail application, with the complainant suggesting stringent conditions if bail were granted.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner made a case for bail, subject to stringent terms and conditions. The Court acknowledged that the allegations involved forged bills without GST details. However, relying on various Supreme Court judgments, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, State of Rajasthan v Balchand, Gudikanti Narasimhulu, Prahlad Singh Bhati, Dataram Singh, Sushila Aggarwal, and Sumit Mehta, the Court emphasized that the grant or refusal of bail is a discretionary power that must be exercised judiciously and humanely. The Court noted that the possibility of influencing investigations or tampering with evidence can be addressed through stringent conditions. The petitioner, being a first offender, was given an opportunity to correct his course. The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- and a surety bond of Rs. 25,000/-, or alternatively, a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- and a fixed deposit of Rs. 10,000/-. Numerous other conditions were imposed to ensure cooperation with the investigation, prevent tampering with evidence, and safeguard witnesses. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, considering the allegations of issuing forged bills without GST details and the potential for custodial investigation to cause irreversible injustice, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the grant of bail should be subject to stringent conditions, as contended by the complainant? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that custodial investigation would serve no purpose and that pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice to him and his family. He also highlighted that he has no criminal antecedents. Respondent's (State and Complainant) Arguments: The State opposed the bail application. The complainant argued that if bail were granted, it must be subject to stringent conditions.