No Requirement U/S 441 CrPC That Accused Must Put Signature On Bail Bond In Presence Of Police Officer Or Court: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to a 75-year-old woman in the USA, observing that there is no statutory requirement for an accused to put their signatures on a bail bond in the presence of the Police officer or the Court.
The Bench acknowledging her medical condition, granted interim protection to the accused and questioned whether digital surety bonds could suffice under these circumstances. The Court refrained from addressing this legal proposition due to the impending enactment of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, replacing the current Code of Criminal Procedure effective from July 1, 2024.
A Single Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara observed, “Given the above, if the Investigator wants to arrest the petitioner, they shall inform her as well as her counsel by sending an e-mail and a message, on the e-mails of the petitioner and her counsel, as well as by sending messages (On normal message and/or on WhatsApp) to the petitioner’s number as well as her counsel’s phone number, giving them thirty days to handover the personal bonds signed by the petitioner at the place of her residence.”
Referring to Section 441 CrPC, the Court said: "there is no statutory requirement that the accused must put their signatures in the presence of the Police officer or the Court."
Advocate Vijay Lath represented the petitioner, while A.A.G Sukhdev Singh appeared for the respondent.
The accused, a 75-year-old woman with an MD in Pediatrics who was suffering from advanced carcinoma, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. An FIR was lodged against her under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
She pointed out her clean criminal record and the implications of custodial interrogation and pre-trial incarceration on her health. The High Court, considering her critical health condition, allowed her to join the investigation via video conference from the USA, where she was undergoing treatment for advanced Myeloid Leukemia.
“The petitioner apprehends arrest, and it is not the State's case that her apprehension is false; as such, she has a fundamental right to exercise her statutory right under S. 438 CrPC, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail,” the Court remarked.
Given the accused’s age, illness, clean record, and the documentary nature of the evidence, the Court found no need for her custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration.
Consequently, the Court held, “Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, given the nature of the allegations coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a first offender, and it is neither a case for the petitioner’s custodial interrogation nor for pre-trial incarceration, and the present petition is allowed because for all these reasons, the petitioner makes a case for bail.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Veena Parmar v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:080502)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Vijay Lath
Respondent: A.A.G Sukhdev Singh; D.A.G. Kanav Bansal and Swati Batra
Amicus Curiae: Advocates R.S. Randhawa and Yugank Goyal
