Nisha Singh v. State of Haryana: Anticipatory Bail Granted on Grounds of Parity by Punjab and Haryana High Court, 2020

Case Details

This case, CRM No. M-23811 of 2020, was adjudicated by the Punjab and Haryana High Court before a single judge, the Honourable Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi, in proceedings conducted via video conference and concluded by an oral judgment dated 28th September 2020. The legal proceeding was an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking the grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner, Nisha Singh, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 1034 dated 08.06.2020, registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram, for alleged offences punishable under Sections 193 (Fabricating false evidence), 199 (False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence), and 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The respondent was the State of Haryana, represented by the Assistant Advocate General.

Facts

The material facts and procedural background of the case are as follows. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered based on a direction from the Family Court, Gurugram. The allegations stemmed from proceedings for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case of the prosecution was that the petitioner, Nisha Singh, along with her husband Harjeet Singh Sandhu and her father-in-law Jaspal Singh Sandhu, had misled the Family Court by mentioning an incorrect date in an application filed under Section 13-B for mutual consent divorce, with the intent to procure a decree of divorce fraudulently. Subsequent to the decree being granted, the petitioner herself had filed an application for setting aside the divorce decree on the grounds that it was obtained by fraud. Prior to the petitioner's bail application, the two co-accused persons, namely Harjeet Singh Sandhu and Jaspal Singh Sandhu, had filed their own anticipatory bail petition registered as CRM No. M-19787 of 2020. In that connected case, by an order dated 21st July 2020, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had granted them the benefit of anticipatory bail, directing them to join investigation and imposing standard conditions as per Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner, Nisha Singh, then filed the present petition seeking similar relief primarily on the ground of parity. On 21st August 2020, the Court issued notice and, after hearing preliminary arguments, passed an interim order directing the petitioner to join investigation and granting her interim anticipatory bail with conditions, while adjourning the matter. On the next date of hearing, 28th September 2020, the State counsel reported that the petitioner had complied with the interim order and joined the investigation, and that no further interrogation was required at that stage.

Issues

The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner, Nisha Singh, was entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This primary issue encompassed several sub-issues: firstly, whether the principle of parity, given that similarly situated co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail, was squarely applicable to the petitioner's case; secondly, whether the State could demonstrate any differentiating or distinguishing facts peculiar to the petitioner's role or conduct that would justify denying her the same benefit as was extended to her co-accused; and thirdly, what appropriate conditions, in conformity with statutory mandate, should be imposed upon the petitioner in the event bail was granted.

Decision

The Court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Nisha Singh, making the interim bail order dated 21st August 2020 absolute. The decision was predicated on a detailed and structured reasoning process that engaged with each of the issues outlined above.

The dominant and most critical pillar of the Court's reasoning was the application of the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence. The Court meticulously examined the status of the co-accused. It was an undisputed and conceded fact, recorded from the submissions of the learned State counsel, that the two co-accused—Harjeet Singh Sandhu (husband) and Jaspal Singh Sandhu (father-in-law)—had already been granted anticipatory bail by the same High Court in CRM No. M-19787 of 2020. The Court established a clear legal standard flowing from this factual premise: once it is conceded that co-accused have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail, the same benefit cannot be denied to a petitioner seeking similar relief unless any differentiating fact is brought to the notice of the Court which would disentitle the petitioner to that benefit. The Court framed this as a negative burden on the prosecution; the denial of bail on parity grounds is not automatic but the obligation to show a material distinction lies with the State if it seeks a different outcome.

The Court then proceeded to analyze whether any such differentiating facts existed in the present case. This constituted the second major step in its reasoning. The judgment records that the learned State counsel, representing the respondent-State of Haryana, very fairly conceded that there were no differentiating facts between the petitioner and the co-accused. The Court accepted this fair concession. It did not independently delve into a comparative analysis of roles because the State itself did not allege any distinction. The allegations in the FIR were collectively against all three persons for the singular act of misleading the court by stating wrong facts to procure a divorce decree. The petitioner's subsequent conduct of filing an application to set aside the very decree obtained by fraud was noted in the proceedings but was not treated as a distinguishing factor warranting denial of bail; if anything, it was part of the narrative presented by her counsel. The absence of any prosecutorial assertion of a heightened role, greater culpability, or unique misconduct by the petitioner was fatal to the State's opposition. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner had successfully made out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.

The third component of the Court's decision involved the formulation and imposition of conditions as mandated by law. The Court invoked the specific provisions of Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., which provides the framework for conditions that can be attached to an order granting anticipatory bail. The conditions imposed were standard and aimed at ensuring the petitioner's cooperation with the investigative process and preventing any interference with the course of justice. The Court made the interim bail order absolute, thereby permanently incorporating the conditions that were stipulated in the order dated 21st August 2020. These conditions required that the petitioner shall: make herself available for interrogation by the police as and when required; not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing facts; not leave India without the prior permission of the Court; and abide by all conditions enshrined under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Additionally, the Court explicitly directed that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so in the future.

Furthermore, the Court incorporated a significant procedural safeguard and a caveat in favour of the investigating agency. The judgment clarifies that in case, at any point after the grant of bail, the investigating agency feels that the petitioner is required for investigation but is not cooperating, it retains the liberty to approach the Court for passing appropriate orders. This provision mirrors a similar liberty expressly granted in the interim order, which stated that if any incriminating material comes against the petitioner after she joins investigation, the State would be at liberty to file an application seeking her custody if needed. This demonstrates the Court's balancing act—granting relief on parity grounds while preserving the State's right to seek custody based on future developments or non-compliance, thus ensuring the order was not a blanket immunity from arrest but a conditional protection subject to the petitioner's ongoing conduct and the emergence of new evidence.

In its final disposition, the Court did not find any merit in the State's opposition and held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The petition was accordingly disposed of with the grant of anticipatory bail made absolute subject to the stated conditions.

Quotes

The judgment contains several essential extracts that encapsulate the Court's core reasoning and the factual concessions crucial to the outcome:

"Once, it is conceded that co-accused have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court, the same benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner unless any differentiating fact is brought to the notice of this Court, which dis-entitle the petitioner the benefit, as extended to similarly situated co-accused."

"In the present case, learned State counsel very fairly concedes that there are no differentiating facts between the petitioner and co-accused."

"That being so, petitioner has made out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail."

"Petitioner is directed to join the investigation forthwith. In the event of her arrest, she shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer on her furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to her satisfaction subject to the following conditions..."

"However, the petitioner shall abide by the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 He shall also join investigation as and when called upon to do so."

"In case at any given point of time hereinafter, it is felt by the Investigating Agency that petitioner is required for the investigation but is not co-operating, it will be at liberty to approach this Court for passing appropriate orders."