IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M- 11954-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 17.4.2020 Rajinder Bassi and others Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Dhuriwala, Sr. DAG, Punjab. (the aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since proceedings are being conducted in Virtual Court) GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. petitioners, against whom there are allegations of having caused loss to State-Exchequer to tune of `20 crores appx. by evasion of payment of GST, seek grant of interim bail, mainly on account of prevelant conditions of spread of COVID-19 virus. 2. It has been contended on behalf of petitioners that since large number of inmates are confined in New District Jail, Nabha and threat of spread of pandemic COVID-19 still looms large and since policy has in fact been framed by State Government for release of prisoners, present petitioners deserve to be released on bail in terms of policy . learned counsel while referring to policy(Annexure P-2) has submitted that as per said policy under-trials against whom cases have been registered for offences punishable for imprisonment for period upto 7 years, are entitled to be released on bail and that petitioners against whom 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2021 09:05:14 ::: 2 CRM-M-11954-2020 complaint has been filed under section 132 of GST Act 2017, which is punishable for maximum sentence of 5 years, would be fully covered under said policy. 3. Opposing petition, learned State counsel submitted that keeping in view huge amount involved in present case i.e. `20 crores, offence in question assumes enormity. It has further been submitted that order dated 23.3.2020 of Supreme Court would not vest petitioners with any absolute right for their release on bail as also been clarified by Hon'ble Supreme Court itself. learned State counsel has pointed out that in furtherance to decision taken by high-powered committee constituted pursuant to directions of Supreme Court, large number of prisoners have already been released on parole or on interim bail and there is no longer any congestion in jails. It has further been submitted that as on date there is no reported case of COVID-19 in jail premises so as to pose any threat of spread of COVID-19 in Jail and as such apprehension of petitioners of contracting virus within jail premises is misconceived. 4. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 23..3.2020 had directed all States/Union Territories to consider as to which of prisoners 'may' be released on interim bail or parole during pandemic so as to decongest jails and to prevent outbreak of COVID-19 virus in prisons. Pursuant ot said directions Committee was constituted in State of Punjab, headed by Chairman, Punjab State Legal Services Authority and certain guidelines were laid for release of certain categories of prisoners. 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2021 09:05:14 ::: 3 CRM-M-11954-2020 6. Subsequently, vide order dated 13.4.2020, passed in I.A. No. 48260 of 2020 passed in SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION(Civil) NO.1. OF 2020, certain clarifications as regards order dated 23.03.2020 have been issued by Supreme Court, relevant extract of which reads as follows: By order dated 23.03.2020, we directed States/Union Territories to constitute High Powered Committees which could decide which prisoners may be released on interim bail or parole during pandemic (COVID-19). purpose was to prevent overcrowding of prisons so that in case of outbreak of coronavirus in prisons, spread of disease is manageable. operative part of our order reads as follows: ' We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute High Powered Committee comprising of ..... ...... ..... ...... It is made clear that we leave it open for High Powered Committee to determine category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon nature of offence, number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or severity of offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which Committee may consider appropriate.' We are informed that State of Bihar has not found it appropriate to release prisoners for complete absence of any patient suffering from coronavirus within prisons and also for reason that prisons are not overcrowded. Moreover, even in one case murder of prisoner who was accused of suffering from corona virus has been reported. We make it clear that we have not directed States/ Union Territories to compulsorily release prisoners from their respective prisons. purpose of our aforesaid order was to ensure States/Union Territories to assess situation in their prisons having regard to outbreak of present pandemic in country 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2021 09:05:14 ::: 4 CRM-M-11954-2020 and release certain prisoners and for that purpose to determine category of prisoners to be released. ( emphasis supplied ) 7. spirit of directions as issued by Supreme Court vide order dated 23.02.2020 and as clarified vide order dated 13.4.2020 may be discerned as follows: (i) purpose of issuance of directions was to ensure that respective States assess situation in their prisons having regard to outbreak pandemic and to consider release of prisoners on interim bail or parole to prevent overcrowding of prisons so that in case of outbreak of corona virus in prisons, spread of disease is manageable. (ii) nature of offence, number of years to which prisoner has been sentenced, severity of offence with which under-trial is charged with or any other relevant factor, which Committee may consider appropriate, would be guiding factors for taking decision. (iii) It has been clarified that directions issued on 23.03.2020 were not to be interpreted so as to mean that prisoners have to be compulsorily released from prisons. 8. It is correct that present case is case where allegations against petitioners are in respect of section 132 of GST Act 2017 which is punishable for maximum sentence of 5 years and that as per policy cases of under trials charged with offences punishable for sentence of up to 7 years could be considered. However, offence assumes gravity in view of colossal amount involved in present case which is `20 crores appx. and is certainly factor to be borne in mind while considering release of petitioner on interim bail. Infact allegations are to effect that petitioners had forged bills and other documents in furtherance of their designs to cause loss to State Exchequeuer which 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2021 09:05:14 ::: 5 CRM-M-11954-2020 prima-facie would also attract offence punishable under section 467 IPC which is punishable with imprisonment for life. 9. Further, as has been clarified by Supreme Court, prisoners are not to be compulsorily released. primary object of directions issued by Supreme Court is to protect health of prisoners and restrict transmission of COVID-19 by decongestion of prisons. move certainly cannot be treated as windfall for all prisoners even when there is no imminent threat or apprehension within jail premises as on date as regards spread of pandemic. It has been informed by learned State counsel that there is no reported case of COVID-19 within jail premises and that fresh entrants, if any, are lodged separately. 10. It was on 24th March that complete lockdown for 21 days was imposed in nation which stands extended up to 3rd of May. Till 24th of March there would have been regular inflow of fresh prisoners in jail consequent upon arrest in freshly instituted cases or on account of convictions recorded just before lockdown. However, after imposition of lockdown in entire nation, everything has come to grinding halt and even inflow of fresh inmates would have been drastically reduced. It is only when person comes in contact with someone infected that there are chances of other person contracting virus. Since it is more than 3 weeks after lockdown was imposed, number of fresh entrants in jail would be minimal. It has been informed by learned State counsel that there is no congestion in Nabha Jail and and that number of inmates presently confined therein is less than capacity of jail and that another 47 inmates are to be transferred to other jails shortly. It has further been 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2021 09:05:14 ::: 6 CRM-M-11954-2020 submitted that there is no reported case of COVID-19 within premises of jail. From aforesaid facts, it can, thus, safely be said that prisoners within New District Jail, Nabha are relatively safe. 11. This Court also draws strength from fact that State of Bihar has chosen not to release any of prisoners as jails are not congested and there was no reported case of corona virus in jails and said fact was duly noticed by Supreme Court in its order dated 13.3.2020. Since Nabha Jail already stands decongested and there is no reported case of COVID-19 within premises of jail, therefore keeping in view nature and gravity of offence and amount involved this Court does not deem it appropriate to grant interim bail to petitioner. application, as such, is dismissed. 12. Before parting with this order, it is directed that Superintendent, Jail would ensure that that all required cautions and safeguards are duly adhered to whenever any new inmate is admitted to jail and would get him/her medically examined and keep him/her segregated from other inmates atleast for period of 14 days so as to rule out any chance of spread of epidemic within jail premises in case such fresh prisoner happens to be infected with COVID-19 although he may not initially have shown any such symptoms. 13. It is however clarified that dismissal of this application for grant of interim bail shall not have any bearing on consideration of any application for grant of regular bail on merits. 17.4.2020 (Gurvinder Singh Gill) Gaurav Sorot Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2021 09:05:14 ::: Rajinder Bassi and others v. State of Punjab