P&H High Court Grants Bail To Accused While Imposing Bail Condition Of Using One Prepaid SIM Till Final Verdict

Justice Anoop Chitkara directed the concerned Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police to make sure that all the telecom service providers deactivate all prepaid SIM cards and prepaid mobile numbers issued to the petitioner, except the one that is mentioned as the primary number/ default number linked with the AADHAAR card till the conclusion of the trial.

The petitioner was arrested under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 384 (extortion), 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 509 (word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy). Additionally, the petitioner was also charged under Section 66D and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which deal with cybercrimes, and Section 14 of the Foreigner Act., sought bail under Section 439 of CrPC.

Advocate Manjot S. Gujra appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Deepinder Brar (Addl. P.P.) appeared for the Respondent.

Petitioner's counsel proposes stringent conditions, including using only one mobile number (as per AADHAR) till trial conclusion and disconnecting other numbers within 15 days of release. Petitioner argues prolonged pre-trial incarceration is unjust to them and their family.

However, the State opposed bail due to the accused's criminal past, fearing potential reoffending if granted bail.

The Court considered the case of Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., holding that mere criminal antecedents cannot be a sole reason to reject the bail plea. The Court emphasized the need to examine the accused's role in the case and other factors, such as the possibility of fleeing from the court's jurisdiction.

“While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law.”

While reiterating the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, the Court acknowledged the importance of imposing elaborate and stringent conditions to address the concerns raised by the investigating agency. The Court further emphasized that restrictive conditions can be imposed to prevent accused from fleeing, and the accused's liability to bear the cost of tracing them in case of non-compliance.

The Court recalled that in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) the court had allowed for flexible bail conditions, keeping pace with advancements in technology for identification techniques. It also considered alternative options to minimize the reliance on sureties.

In this particular case, the Court decided to grant bail to the petitioner based on several factors, such as the petitioner not being the principal accused, all co-accused already being released on bail, and a prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations. The Court imposed specific conditions, including restricting the number of prepaid SIM card to be one till the conclusion of the trial, regular reporting, and providing personal identification details.

“Within 15 days from release from prison, the petitioner is directed not to keep more than one prepaid SIM, i.e., one pre-paid mobile phone number, till the conclusion of the trial; however, this restriction is only on prepaid SIMs [mobile numbers] and not on post-paid connections or landline numbers.”

The Court highlighted that the conditions must be proportional to the purpose they seek to serve and should not cause undue deprivation of rights and liberties.

The Court granted bail to the petitioner in this case, taking into account the specific circumstances, while emphasizing the need to expedite the trial and imposing stringent conditions to address any concerns related to the petitioner's criminal history.

Cause Title: Arjun Sain v. State of U.T (Chandigarh)

Click here to read/download Order