No Application Of Mind: High Court Takes Exception To "Cavalier Approach" In Filing Bail Cancellation Plea, Imposes 10K Cost On Haryana Govt

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on Haryana for filing cancellation of an anticipatory bail in an extortion case "without application of mind."

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "It appears that learned Public Prosecutor has recommended to file the present petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent in a mechanical manner without application of mind and such a whimsical and capricious approach is required to be depreciated."

The existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances is a sine qua non for cancellation of bail, which were "completely missing in the instant case", said the Court.

It further added that the "cavalier and cursory approach" with which the State had approached the cancellation of bail cannot be appreciated as the same had a direct and serious impact on the liberty of the accused.

These observations came in response to the petition filed under Section 439 (2) read with Section 482 CrPC for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak in June, 2023 pertaining to a case wherein the accused had allegedly put a person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, to commit extortion under Sections 387 and 120-B IPC.

It was submitted by the State that the accused was involved in the present case based on a disclosure statement made by his co-accused, indicating his involvement in the alleged occurrence.

The State added further that the prayer for cancellation of anticipatory bail has been made on the ground that there is no data regarding the conversation of the respondent with his accomplices and it would take time to retrieve the data through the forensic laboratory.

It was argued that in that time the accused may commit other crimes of similar nature as he was earlier involved in another FIR pertaining to a murder case as well.

Considering the submissions, the Court observed that, "it transpires that the present petition has been filed on flimsy and fragile grounds."

While noting that, "the offence under which the FIR is registered against the respondent is punishable with imprisonment upto seven years," the Court relied on the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), in which the Supreme Court opined that arrest must only be made in offences punishable with seven years or less if there is a likelihood of the accused impeding the progress of the trial by tampering with the evidence or threatening a witness. In absence of such considerations, incarceration of the accused will serve no purpose except overcrowding of jails, it was held.

Observing that in the exercise of judicial review, the scope of interference in an order granting bail was quite narrow, the bench made it clear that Courts were under an obligation to ensure that a balance was maintained between the precious right of the accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and the rights of the victim and society. 

Consequently, the bench imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 to be deposited with the Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER Chandigarh.

The Court further directed to send a copy of the order to the Director of Prosecution, Haryana to take steps towards sensitization of its officers "to ensure that filing of appeals before higher Courts is not done in a mechanical fashion which do not meet the objective standard of reason and justice."

Appearance: Geeta Sharma, DAG Haryana for the petitioner.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 17

Title: State of Haryana v. Indraj

Click here to read/download the order