JUDGMENT Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 1 10.02.2017 Vigilance Bureau, Economic Offences Wing, District Ludhiana 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and 13(1) (D) read with 13(2) of the PC Act (Sec"on 201 IPC added later on) The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. 2. In paragraph 19 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and are also voluntarily agreeable to the condition that till the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner shall keep only one mobile number, which is mentioned in AADHAR card, if any, and within fifteen days undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The petitioner contends that custodial interrogation and pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 4. The state's counsel opposes the bail. Reply dated 07.03.2024 filed by State counsel today in the Court is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to counsel for the petitioner. 5. The prosecution case is being taken from reply dated 07.03.2024, which reads as follows: "4. That after the creation of new road alignment in the above mentioned five villages the accused Anand Sagar Sharma the then SDM-cum-CALA Hoshiarpur involved his near and close persons namely Harpinder Singh etc. That accused Harpinder Singh started purchasing the agricultural land in villages Khawaspur and Hardokhanpur in his own name and in the name of his family members/relatives/close associates. Thereafter, in connivance and conspiracy with accused Anand sagar sharma, the accused Harpinder Singh and other accused mentioned in this FIR received compensation on colony/residential rates, which is totally unfair and illegal in the eyes of law. It is worth while to mention here that the present SIT while during the course of investigation obtained reports from the concerned departments to verify and investigate the facts as following: (i) The SIT obtained report dated 04/10/2023 from the office of District town planner Hoshiarpur and as per this report/record no CLU/Lay out/Site plan/NOC were issued by the then office. In fact there is no communication between any of the accused who filed application under 3C and the Office of District town planner with regard to same. In fact there is no communication between any of the accused who filed application under 3C and the Office of District town planner with regard to same. It is crystal clear from the report of DTP dated 4/10 /2023 that there is no basic facility like street lights/drainage system/water supply etc. available even as on date as per the record. (Copy of the report dated 4/10/2023 is attached as annexure- 2). (ii) That during the course of investigation the report from PSPCL was also obtained. While in the said report dated 10/10/2023 it is specially mentioned that none of the accused who filed application under 3C has applied for issuance/installation of the electricity meter nor the same has been issued by the department as per the office record. (The copy of said PSPCL report dated 10/10 / 2023 is attached as annexure-3). (iii) That the current/latest report from the revenue department was also obtained by the SIT during the course of investigation and as per the said report dated 21/9/2023 there is no colony/residential area in the said land described by the accused while filing application under 3C. Even the said area is surrounded by agricultural land with crops as well. (The copy of revenue report dated 21/9 /2023 is attached as annexure-4). 5. That as per the law laid down in the National Highway Act 1956 under Section 3D(2);- "On the publication of the declaration under sub-Section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances." But the accused and the then SDM cum CALA Anand sagar sharma, in connivance and conspiracy with other accused and by abusing process of law kept transferring the ownership titles in the changed khasra numbers in 3A schedule by him even after notification under 3D /3G even when the names of actual owners of the land were already published in the notification under 3D /3G in order to give compensation to other accused and conspirators in this matter. It is also pertinent to mention here that during the course of investigation the actual owners of the land came forward and got recorded their statements that the accused have cheated and defrauded them and their compensation amount has been grabbed by them, in connivance and conspiracy with each other. 6. It is also pertinent to mention here that during the course of investigation the actual owners of the land came forward and got recorded their statements that the accused have cheated and defrauded them and their compensation amount has been grabbed by them, in connivance and conspiracy with each other. 6. Detail of sequentially published notifications regarding the acquisition of land under National Highway 70 (Now NH-3) (Jalandhar-Chintpurani) as following: Sr. No. Notifications Date of Publication in newspaper 1. 3A 14.07.2015 2. 3D 10.11.2015 & 11.11.2015 3. 3G 01.12.2015 6. Counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that there is no justification of custodial interrogation and evidence available against him is that he has put his signatures on behalf of co-accused as purchaser in two sale deeds. 7. State counsel opposes the bail by referring to paragraph 7 of the reply dated 07.03.2024, which reads as follows: "That the accused Kuldeep Kumar is well known to co-accused Harpinder Singh. The accused/petitioner in connivance and conspiracy with co-accused Harpinder Singh appeared on behalf of co-accused Poonam Gill, co-accused Simarjit Singh, co-accused Charnjeet Kaur and Amanjot Singh and Chand Rani at the time of 4 sale deeds respectively bearing number date 22-03-2016, 8086 dated 28-03-2016, 8058 dated 22-03-2016 and 8056 dated 22-03-2016 got them registered in the name of co-accused even after the notification under 3D and 3G. It is pertinent to mention here that the co-accused Poonam Gill, co-accused Simarjit Singh, is niece and nephew of co-accused Harpinder Singh. This way the accused/petitioner cheated and defraud real owners of the land and got co-accused Poonam Gill, co-accused Simarjit Singh and Caranjeet Kaur grabbed the compensation amount which belonged to real owners and which is in Lakhs." 8. Given the penal provisions imposed and the sentence provided by the Legislature, the nature of allegations coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail. 9. Given the penal provisions imposed and the sentence provided by the Legislature, the nature of allegations coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record and its analysis would lead to the outcome that petitioner's role is only to put his signatures on behalf of co-accused (purchaser) and they are not beneficiary at all, as such, neither it is a case for custodial interrogation nor pre trial incarceration. 10. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565 , (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42 , (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude fling a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing require, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447 , (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. 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 when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. 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 when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240 , (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favours release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280 , Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerations. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018:INSC:107 [Para 7], (2018) 3 SCC 22 , (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory. 11. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State(NCT of Delhi) 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92], (2020) 5 SCC 1 , Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions. In Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013) 15 SCC 570 , Para 11, Supreme Court holds that while exercising power Under Section 438 of the Code, the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. While exercising utmost restraint, the Court can impose conditions countenancing its object as permissible under the law to ensure an uninterrupted and unhampered investigation. 12. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. 13. 12. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. 13. In Madhu Tanwar v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21], CRM-M- 27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed, [10] The exponential growth in technology and artificial intelligence has transformed identification techniques remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recognition are incredibly sophisticated and pervasive. Impersonation, as we know it traditionally, has virtually become impossible. Thus, the remedy lies that whenever a judge or an officer believes that the accused might be a flight risk or has a history of fleeing from justice, then in such cases, appropriate conditions can be inserted that all the expenditure that shall be incurred to trace them, shall be recovered from such person, and the State shall have a lien over their assets to make good the loss. [21] In this era when the knowledge revolution has just begun, to keep pace with exponential and unimaginable changes the technology has brought to human lives, it is only fitting that the dependence of the accused on surety is minimized by giving alternative options. Furthermore, there should be no insistence to provide permanent addresses when people either do not have permanent abodes or intend to re-locate. 14. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, in the following terms: (a). petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/); AND (b) To give one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigator/SHO, before whom the bonds are required to be furnished. When the bonds are to be furnished before a Judicial Magistrate, then in case of the non-availability of the concerned Judicial Magistrate, to any other nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned officer must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the court. OR (b). petitioner to hand over to the concerned investigator a fixed deposit for Rs. Before accepting the surety, the concerned officer must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the court. OR (b). petitioner to hand over to the concerned investigator a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automatic renewal of the principal and the interest reverting to the linked account, made in favour of the 'Chief Judicial Magistrate' of the concerned district, or blocking the aforesaid amount in favour of the concerned 'Chief Judicial Magistrate'. Said fixed deposit or blocking funds can be from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or from any of the well-established and stable private sector banks. In case the bankers are not willing to make a Fixed Deposit in such eventuality it shall be permissible for the petitioner to prepare an account payee demand draft favouring concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for a similar amount. (c). Such court shall have a lien over the funds until the case's closure or discharged by substitution, or up to the expiry of the period mentioned under Section 437A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under Section 446 CrPC, the entire amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor. (d). The petitioner is to also execute a bond for attendance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presentation of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declarations made in the bail petition and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and of this bail order. (e). While furnishing personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number, (If available), when the court attesting the bonds thinks appropriate or considers the accused as a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 15. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days and also as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating officer or any Superior officer; and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating officer or any Superior officer; and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail. Whenever the investigation occurs within the police premises, the petitioner shall not be called before 8 AM, let of before 6 PM, and shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 16. The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence. 17. petitioner to comply with their undertaking made in the bail petition, made before this court through counsel as rejected at the beginning of this order. If the petitioner fails to comply with any of such undertakings, then on this ground alone, the bail might be cancelled, and the victim/complainant may file any such application for the cancellation of bail, and the State shall file the said application. 18. 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 petitioner must comply with this condition within fifteen days of release from today. The concerned DySP shall also direct all the telecom service providers to 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 and further that till the no objection from the concerned SHO, the mobile service providers shall not issue second pre-paid SIM/ mobile number in the petitioner's name. Since, as on date, in India, there are only four prominent mobile service providers, namely BSNL, Airtel, Vodafone-Idea, and Reliance Jio, any other telecom service provider are directed to comply with the directions of the concerned Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police, issued in this regard and disable all prepaid mobile phone numbers issued in the name of the petitioner, except the main number/default number linked with AADHAR, by taking such information from the petitioner's AADHAR details or any other source, for which they shall be legally entitled by this order. This condition shall continue till the completion of the trial or closure of the case, whichever is earlier. In Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 INSC 655 , [para 45], while granting bail under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002, Supreme Court had directed imposition of the similar condition, which reads as follows, "(d) Both the appellants shall use only one Mobile Phone each, during the time they remain on bail and shall inform the Investigating officer of the NIA, their respective mobile numbers." 19. During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condition as stipulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for cancellation of this bail. It shall further be open for any investigating agency to bring it to the notice of the Court seized of the subsequent application that the accused was earlier cautioned not to indulge in criminal activities. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and after that in Section 437A of the Cr.P.C., if not cancelled due to non-appearance or breach of conditions. 20. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this Court are to endeavour that the accused does not repeat the offence and to provide victim a sense of security. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. The courts while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed." 21. Any Advocate for the petitioner and the officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order in any language that the petitioner understands. 22. If the petitioner finds bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition. 23. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law. 24. In case the Investigator/officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another Section of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new Section prescribes maximum sentence which is not greater than the Sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added Section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted Sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the Sections mentioned above, then, in that case, the Investigator/officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 25. Any observation made herein above is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 26. In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behaviour. 27. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds petition allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.