7 Aug 2023 9:16 AM GMT
While granting bail to an accused of the offence of 'Stalking' (Section 354D IPC), the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently imposed a bail condition on him that within 15 days from release from prison, the petitioner is directed not to keep more than one 'prepaid' SIM/mobile phone number, till the conclusion of the trial.However, the restriction put by the Court is only on prepaid SIMs...
While granting bail to an accused of the offence of 'Stalking' (Section 354D IPC), the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently imposed a bail condition on him that within 15 days from release from prison, the petitioner is directed not to keep more than one 'prepaid' SIM/mobile phone number, till the conclusion of the trial.
However, the restriction put by the Court is only on prepaid SIMs [mobile numbers] and not on post-paid connections or landline numbers owned by the Accused.
Further, the bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara also directed the concerned Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police to direct all the telecom service providers to deactivate all prepaid SIM cards of the accused (except for the primary SIM), in case he fails to comply with this condition of keeping only one prepaid SIM.
In turn, all the prepaid telecom service providers have also been directed to comply with the directions of the concerned Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police and to disable all prepaid mobile phone numbers issued in the name of the accused. This condition shall continue till the completion of the trial or closure of the case, whichever is earlier.
The Court passed this order while granting bail to one Arjun Sain booked under Sections 384, 420, 468, 471, 509 & 120-B IPC and Sections 66 D & 67 of the Information Technology Act 2000 and Section 14 of the Foreigner Act.
The Accused had moved the court seeking regular bail in the case while declaring his criminal history of two FIRs.
At the outset, the Court noted that all co-accused stand released on bail and that as per the petitioner’s case, he is not the principal accused.
Further, considering the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pretrial custody, coupled with the prima facia analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, the Court found that there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order.
Hence, the Court did not consider the previous criminal history of the accused strictly at this stage as a factor for denying bail and allowed his plea.
It may be noted that while granting bail to an accused, Punjab and Haryana High Court has been imposing several conditions on the person: procure a smartphone, always keep the GPS turned on and do not format the phone or delete its WhatsApp chats or call logs.
Justice Chitkara has imposed identical conditions of the accused having to procure a smartphone in several other bail matters like Gursharanjit Singh @ Sunny v. State of Punjab and Umed Singh v. State of Haryana.
In another decision reported by LiveLaw, Justice Chitkara, while granting bail to former MLA Simarjit Singh Bains in a rape case, ordered him to surrender all his weapons along with the arms license.
Case title - Arjun Sain vs. State of U.T (Chandigarh) [CRM-M-29089-2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 139
Click Here To Read/Download Order