"Accused Shall Not Indulge In Similar Offence Or Other Offence On Account Of Bail": Delhi Court Grants Bail To Mandeep Punia Stipulating Conditions
A Delhi Court on Tuesday granted bail to Mandeep Punia, an accused under sections Sections 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) read with S.34 of the IPC in connection with the Tractor Rally violence that engulfed the capital on India's 72nd Republic Day.
The Bail Application, filed on behalf of Punia through Advocates Sarim Naved, Akram Khan & Kamran Javed was heard by CMM Satvir Singh Lamba, North district, Rohini Court, New Delhi.
On 31st January, he was presented before Court by Delhi Police and the Metropolitan Magistrate had sent him to 14 days judicial custody.
The applicant contended in the bail application that,
“It is pertinent to mention here that the alleged scuffle incident of present case is of around 6.30 PM. However, the present FIR was registered at around 1.21 AM on the next day. Moreover, the complainant, victims and witnesses are police personnel only. Hence, there is no possibility that accused/ applicant can able to influence any of the police officials.”
The applicant further contended that another journalist was arrested with him who was released around midnight, his family was informed late about the arrest, the offences under IPC are not made out against him and it was also emphasised that accused will co-operate in the investigation, as per law and prayer was made for the grant of bail.
Hence, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, submissions on behalf of both the parties as well as keeping in view the period of detention of the accused in judicial custody, the court admitted him to bail on furnishing bail bond with a sum of Rs.25,000/- along with one sound surety and following conditions were imposed –
1. The applicant / accused shall not jump the bail and shall appear in the court regularly.
2. Accused shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court.
3. Accused shall not indulge into similar offence or any other offence in the event of release on bail.
4. Accused shall not tamper with the evidences in any manner.
5. In case of change of residential address, accused shall intimate the court about the same within a week.
6. The accused shall join the investigations as and when required by the IO/investigating agency.
7. The accused shall provide his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO on which he may be contacted, if required or necessary and shall ensure that the said number shall be kept active and switched on all the times.
On the point of law, Puniya had informed the Magistrate that the FIR filed against him is under s. 186, 353 & 332 of the IPC, in terms of which the max punishment is under 7 years, qualifying him with a safeguard under section 41A of CRPC.
In this context, Puniya has also cited the landmark judgment of Arunesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
The accused has been charged for offences u/s 186 (obstructing any public servant while discharging public functions), 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) and 332 (Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty) r/w section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code,1860 for misbehaving with an official on duty at the protest site while covering the farmers' protest.
The bail application had further highlighted a delay of seven hours in filing the FIR, stating that it should be considered significant when both the complainant and alleged victim were police officers.
Hours before he was detained, Punia had gone live on Facebook, alleging that police had allowed men claiming to be locals to pelt the protesters at Singhu with stones on Friday.