ਫੈਸਲਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਦੇ ਧਿਆਨ ‘ਚ ਰੱਖਣ ਯੋਗ ਨਿਯਮ/ਦਿਸ਼ਾ-ਨਿਰਦੇਸ਼ (Principles which the court is to follow while deciding bail)

ਫੈਸਲਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਦੇ ਧਿਆਨ ‘ਚ ਰੱਖਣ ਯੋਗ ਨਿਯਮ/ਦਿਸ਼ਾ–ਨਿਰਦੇਸ਼ (Principles which the court is to follow while deciding bail)

  1.ਪੇਸ਼ਗੀ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਮੰਨਜ਼ੂਰ ਜਾਂ ਨਾ-ਮੰਨਜ਼ੂਰ ਕਰਦੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਅਦਾਲਤ ਦਾ ਫ਼ਰਜ਼ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਆਪਣੇ ਅਧਿਕਾਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਵਰਤੋਂ ਸੁਚੇਤ ਹੋ ਕੇ (consciously) ਅਤੇ ਸਿਆਣਪ (wisely) ਨਾਲ ਕਰੇ।

Case (i) : Gurbux Singh Sibia Vs. State of Punjab, 1980 Cr.L.J. 1125 (1) (SC- Constitutional Bench)

“A wise exercise of judicial power inevitably takes care of the evil consequences which are likely to flow out of its intemperate use. Every kind of judicial discretion, whatever may be the nature of the matter in regard to which it is required to be exercised, has to be used with due care and caution. Infact, an awareness of the context in which the discretion is required to be exercised and of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of its use, is the hallmark of a prudent exercise of judicial discretion. One ought not to make a bugbear of the power to grant anticipatory bail”.

Case (ii) : Pokar Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1985 Crl.L.J. 1175 (1)

Para “11. “Court must be cautious and circumspect in exercising such power of a discretionary nature”.

Case (iii) : Directorate of enforcement and another Vs. P.V. Prabhakar Rao, 1997 Cr.L.J. 4634 (SC)

Para “7. “We remind ourselves that the order contemplated under section 438 of the code is to be granted or refused by the High court or the Court of Sessions, after exercising its judicial discretion wisely.”

 2.ਅਦਾਲਤ ਨੂੰ ਇਹ ਨਹੀਂ ਮੰਨ ਲੈਣਾ (presumption) ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਕਿ:

a) ਆਮ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਅਮੀਰ ਆਦਮੀ ਭਗੌੜਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਅਤੇ ਗਰੀਬ ਆਦਮੀ ਭਗੌੜਾ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ।
b) ਅਮੀਰ ਆਦਮੀ ਆਮ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਜ਼ੁਰਮ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਦਾ ਅਤੇ ਗਰੀਬ ਆਦਮੀ ਆਮ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਜ਼ੁਰਮ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ।

Case: Gurbux Singh Sibia Vs. State of Punjab, 1980 Cr.L.J. 1125 (1)

Para “32. A word of caution may perhaps be necessary in the evaluation of the consideration whether the applicant is likely to abscond. There can be no presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit themselves to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away from the course of justice, any more than there can be a presumption that the former are not likely to commit a crime and the latter are more likely to commit it……”

 3. ‘ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ, ਨਾ ਕਿ ਜੇਲ’ (bail not jail) ਦਾ ਆਮ ਨਿਯਮ ਪੇਸ਼ਗੀ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਉੱਪਰ ਲਾਗੂ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੁੰਦਾ।
Case : State Rep. by the CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997 Cr.L.J.4414

Para “7. High Court has approached the issue as though it was considering a prayer for granting regular bail after arrest. Learned single Judge of the High Court reminded himself of the principle that “it is well-settled that bail and not jail is a normal Rule” and then observed thus :

“Unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court which may defeat the proper investigation and fair trial, the Court will not decline bail to a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances have been brought to the notice of this Court which may defeat proper investigation to decline bail to the applicant.”

8. The above observations are more germane while considering an application for post-arrest bail. Consideration which should weigh with the Court while dealing with a request for anticipatory bail need not be the same as for an application to release on bail after arrest.”

 4. ਧਾਰਾ 438 ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ. ਅਧੀਨ ‘ਸਰਵਪੱਖੀ’ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ  (blanket bail) ਦਾ ਹੁਕਮ ਦੇਣਾ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ।

Case: Adri Dharan Dass Vs. State of West Bengal, 2005 Cr.L.J. 1706 (SC)

Para “16. ….. Normally a direction should not issue to the effect that the applicant shall be released on bail “whenever arrested for whichever offence whatsoever”. Such ‘blanket order’ should not be passed as it would serve as a blanket to cover or protect any and every kind of allegedly unlawful activity. An order under Section 438 is a device to secure the individual’s liberty it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations likely or unlikely.”

5. ਪੇਸ਼ਗੀ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦਾ ਹੁਕਮ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਗ੍ਰਿਫਤਾਰੀ ਤੋਂ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਹੀ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। ਗ੍ਰਿਫਤਾਰੀ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਅਦ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਧਾਰਾ ੪੩੭ ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ. ਜਾਂ ੪੩੯ ਸੀ.ਆਰ.ਪੀ.ਸੀ. ਅਧੀਨ ਹੀ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ।

Case: Adri Dharan Dass Vs. State of West Bengal, 2005 Cr.L.J. 1706

Para “18. ….. An application under Section 438 of the Code can be moved only by a person who has not already been arrested. Once he is arrested, his remedy is to move the concerned Court either under Section 437 or Section 439 of the Code….”

6. ਅਦਾਲਤ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਗ੍ਰਿਫਤਾਰੀ ਉੱਪਰ ਪਾਬੰਦੀ (stay/restrain) ਨਹੀਂ ਲਗਾ ਸਕਦੀ। ਇਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਕਰਨਾ ਤਫਤੀਸ਼ ਵਿੱਚ ਦਖਲ ਅੰਦਾਜ਼ੀ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ।

Case (i) :  Adri Dharan Dass Vs. State of West Bengal, 2005 Cr.L.J. 1706

 Para “19. ….. An interim order restraining arrests, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code.”

Case (ii) :  Parviderjit Singh and another Vs. State of U.T. and anr, 2008(4) RCR (Criminal)897, 2009 AIR (SC)502 :                 this matter was again considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. While reiterating the principle laid down in above mentioned Adri Dharan Dass’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court should not pass an interim order to stay the arrest of the accused during the pendency of the application for grant of anticipatory bail as it will amount to interference in investigation.

7. ਅਦਾਲਤ ਜੋ ਹੁਕਮ ਦੇ ਸਕਦੀ ਹੈ ਉਹ ‘ਗ੍ਰਿਫਤਾਰੀ ਦੀ ਹਾਲਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਨੂੰ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਉੱਪਰ ਰਿਹਾ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਵੇ’ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ।

Case : Adri Dharan Dass Vs. State of West Bengal, 2005 Cr.L.J. 1706

Para “18. ….. Even otherwise, the direction which a Court can issue under Section 438 of the Code is that in the event of arrest of an accused on an accusation of committing a non-bailable offence, he shall be released on bail subject to such conditions as the Court may deem fit to impose.”

 8. ਆਰਥਿਕ ਅਪਰਾਧਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸਖਤੀ ਨਾਲ ਨਿਪਟਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ।

Case: Director of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao,1997 Cr.L.J.4634 (SC – FB)

“….whomsoever perpetrated the grave economic offence deserve to be dealt with sternly under law….’”

 9. ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਦੀ ਅਰਜ਼ੀ ਦਾ ਫੈਸਲਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਦੋਸ਼ੀ ਨੂੰ ਜ਼ਮਾਨਤ ਤੇ ਰਿਹਾ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਕਾਰਨਾਂ ਦਾ ਜ਼ਿਕਰ ਕਰਨਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ ਪਰ ਦੋਸ਼ਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸਿੱਧ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਮਿਸਲ ਤੇ ਆਈ ਸ਼ਹਾਦਤ ਦਾ ਵਿਸਥਾਰ ਸਹਿਤ ਵਿਸ਼ਲੇਸ਼ਣ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ।

Case : Gajanand Aggarwal vs. State of Orissa, 2007 Cr.L.J.2752 (SC)

“Para 19. ….. The High Court has virtually written an order of acquittal by commenting on the evidentiary value of evidence on record. This is impermissible. Only broad features of the case are to be noted. Elaborate analysis of the evidence is to be avoided.”