The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently granted bail to an accused person on the condition that he procures a smartphone, always keeps the GPS on the phone switched on and shares his location with the police [Hussain Abbas alias Tippu v. State of Haryana].

Justice Anoop Chitkara added that the accused should neither clear his WhatsApp chats and call logs, nor format the smart phone without permission from the concerned investigating officer or station house officer.

The Judge warned that the applicant's bail may be cancelled for violation of these conditions alone.

"Within fifteen days of release from prison, the petitioner shall procure a smartphone and inform its IMEI number and other details to the SHO/I.O. of the Police station mentioned above. The petitioner shall always keep the phone location/GPS on the “ON” mode. Whenever the Investigating officer asks to share the location, the petitioner shall immediately do so. The petitioner shall neither clear the location history, WhatsApp chats, call logs nor format the phone without permission of the concerned SHO/I.O. This condition shall continue till the completion of the trial or closure of case, whichever is earlier," stated the bail order.

While cautioning that bail would stand cancelled if the bail applicant violates any of the conditions imposed or is charged with another offence carrying a sentence of seven years or more, the judge added:

"In return for the protection from further incarceration at this stage, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior. It is clarified that in case the petitioner does not mend his ways and repeats the offence or indulge in criminal behaviour, then in all future matters, the concerned courts shall keep it as a factor that this court had afforded a final opportunity to the petitioner to reform and live a normal lifebut did not mend his ways."

The Court further informed that the bail applicant may apply for modification of the bail conditions if he finds any condition to be violative of his fundamental, human or other rights, or if they cause any difficulty.

The order was passed in a case involving allegations of rioting, armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, attempt to murder and mischief under Sections 148, 149, 307 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A charge under Section 25(1B) of Arms Act was also cited in the case. The Court was further informed that a similar Arms Act charge was pending against the bail applicant in another case as well. The applicant had been in jail since September 15, 2022.

Bail was granted after the Court noted that other co-accused in the case had already been granted bail and that the allegations against the bail applicant were not more severe than those against the co-accused. While examining an order granting bail to a co-accused, the judge also noted that there were questions over whether the complainant-party had triggered the altercation and whether the accused may have acted in private defence.

The Court also reiterated that the basic rule is bail, not jail, that the gravity of the offence should be considered while deciding on bail and that the conditions for bail should not be so strict as to be incapable of compliance or to make bail grant illusory.

Other Bail Conditions

Other bail conditions imposed included the execution of a ₹10,000 personal bond and a choice between either furnishing a surety of ₹25,000 or making a ₹10,000 fixed deposit in favour of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

The bail applicant was directed to give details of his address, email and phone number, preferably the number linked with his Aadhaar card.

"If the petitioner finds bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be brought to the notice of this Court for appropriate reduction," the Court added.

Further, the Court made it clear that the bail applicant must not influence, browbeat or threaten the police, witnesses or any other person connected with the case, or tamper with evidence.

Till the trial is concluded, the applicant-accused was also barred from contacting or behaving in any objectionable manner, physically or through phone or social media, towards the victim and the victim's family.

The accused was also specifically ordered not to go within a one kilometer radius of the victim's home till all witness statements in the trial were recorded.

In view of the nature of the allegations against the accused, he was also ordered to surrender any weapons in his possession while the case was pending.

"The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavour that the accused does not repeat the offence and to ensure the safety of the witnesses, victim, and their families," the Court added.

The judge further made it clear that he has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

[Read Order]