Nanak Singh v. State

1. The present bail applications have been filed by the petitioners for the grant of bail in FIR bearing No.280/2019 under Sections 143/147/148/149/186/353/332/308/323/435/427/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860,Sections 3/4 ofthe Prevention ofDamage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered atP.S.Govind Puri,New Delhi.

2. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsels for the petitioners also submitted that the bare perusal of the FIR demonstrates that the FIR does not disclose any specific role ofthe petitioners in the commission ofthe alleged offences. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners were taken into custody on 21.8.2019 and they are injudicial custody since then.

3. Learned counsels for the petitioners, without prejudice to the rights and contentions ofthe petitioners, further submitted that they 2019:DHC:7331 have been instructed to give an undertaking to this Court that the petitioners shall not indulge in any such criminal activities in future and in case the petitioners do so, the State may move an application for the cancellation ofthe bail ofthe petitioners, subject to all rights available to the petitioners underthe law.

4. Per contra, learned APP opposed the bail applications and submitted that the aggressive demonstrations were held on 18.8.2019 and 19.8.2019 but were contained by handling ofthe police force.

5. Learned APP further submitted that one pistol with three live cartridges were recovered from one protestor Roshinder while he was brandishing itin the air.Learned APP further submitted thatthirty two (32)police personnel were injured in the incident; some ofthem are having head injury and one is having grievous injury. It is also submitted that four Delhi Police gypsies and one bus were damaged and one government motorcycle was burnt and two DTC buses were also damaged by the rioters.

6. It is further submitted by the learned APP for the State that the petitioners have actively participated in the commission ofthe crime and were arrested from the spot. The offence committed by the petitioners is of a grave nature, committed against the society, individuals, Govt. officials, and the life and limbs of the public officials were attacked and further, the public and private properties were damaged by the petitioners and their accomplices. The said offence was committed individually as well as in furtherance of common intention and knowledge.

7. Learned APP further submitted that the petitioners have wilfully participated in violent unlawful agitation and protest which caused damage to the public and private property and injury to public servants against the order ofthe Supreme Court, and the petitioners are not the residents of Delhi and ifthey are granted bail, they may come again to protest atthe removed site.

8. Learned APP, on the query of the Court, submitted that the accused Roshinder is not one of the applicants/petitioners herein before this Court, at this stage. Learned APP, on the instructions of the 10, submitted that petitioners are no more required for the purpose ofinterrogation and nothing is required to be recovered from them.

9. In the matter ofState ofRajasthan v. Balchand,(1977)4SCC 308,the Supreme Court held as under: "2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail,not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course ofjustice or creating other troubles in the shape ofrepeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do notintend to be exhaustive butonly illustrative.

3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question ofjail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record ofthe petitioner in this case is that the petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility ofthe absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himselfbefore the police station atBaren once every fortnight."

10. The undertaking ofthe learned counsels for the petitioners that the petitioners shall not indulge in any such criminal activities in future and in case the petitioners do so, the State may move an application for the cancellation ofthe bail ofthe petitioners,subjectto all rights available to the petitioners underthe law,is accepted.

11. This Court taking into consideration the aforesaid undertaking ofthe learned counsels for the petitioners on behalfofthe petitioners, their age,their socio-economic background and the fact that there is nothing on the record which suggests that the petitioners may betray the confidence ofthe Court and/or may take up the law at their hands in future,withoutcommenting onthe merits ofthe allegations made in the FIR against the petitioners,is ofthe opinion that this Courtshould take a lenient view at this stage, more so,in view ofthe fact that no other criminal case is stated to have been registered and/or pending against the petitioners. Even otherwise, no finitful purpose would be served to keep the petitioners languishing in the judicial custody, at present,rather they should be given a chance to introspect and reform themselves while staying with their families.

12. Accordingly, the petitioners are admitted to bail during the pendency of the case in FIR No.280/2019 under Sections A 143/147/148/149/186/353/332/308/323/435/427/120-B/34 of the IndianPenal Code,1860,Sections 3/4 ofthe Prevention ofDamage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered atP.S. Govind Puri,New Delhi and they shall be released, if not required in any other case, subject to each ofthem furnishing bail bonds in the sum ofRs.15,000/- each with one surety ofthe like amount, to the satisfaction ofthe Trial Court. It is clarified that the petitioners shall notindulge in any such activity which may prejudice the investigation,tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner.The petitioners shall also notleave the country without prior permission ofthe Trial Court.The petitioners shall furnish to the 10 their respective current addresses and mobile numbers on which they can be contacted, within one week after their release on bail and if there is any change either in the addresses or mobile numbers in future,they shall promptlyinform the10as well as the Trial Court.

13. It is made clear that nothing stated or observed hereinabove shall tantamountto any expression onthe merits ofthe case.

14. The bail applications are disposed of accordingly. Pending applications also stand disposed of. Dasti. chander^M:khar,j