Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahab Singh Alias Shabu vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030624
CRM-M-2384-2025 -1-
233
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-2384-2025 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 04.03.2025
SAHAB SINGH ALIAS SHABU .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. D.S. Matya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
CRM-8081-2025
This is an application for placing on record the order dated
13.02.2025 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Palwal as Annexure P-13.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed subject to all just exceptions. Annexure P-13 is taken on record.
Application stands disposed of.
CRM-8082-2025
This is an application for seeking exemption from filing
certified/true typed copy of order dated 13.02.2025 i.e. Annexure P-13.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed. Exemption sought for is granted.
Application stands disposed off.
1. Relief sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section
483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case titled as
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:16:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030624
CRM-M-2384-2025 -2-
Mahesh Kumar versus Sant Raj & others, bearing No.COMI 69 of 2014
arising out of FIR No.249, dated 14.10.2002, under Sections 148, 149, 447,
427, 307, 506 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station
Hassanpur, District Palwal (earlier Faridabad) i.e. Annexure P-1.
2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in
the FIR as under:-
“Statement of Mahesh Kumar son of Sh. Budhan caste
Gujjar resident of Kashipur, Age 30 Years. I hereby state
that I am resident of afore-mentioned address and I do
agricultural work. We have agricultural fields near the
Yamuna in Village Fatehpur, U.P. That the area of U.P.
touches with area of our vile, where, we have about 20
Acre land. About 25 days ago we had sown mustard crop
in our 20 Acre land. Today I alongwith my brother Ram
Hans, Munesh, Chander Pal sons of Kishan Singh, Satish
Kumar son of Hargyan, my nephew Jagat Singh son of
Ajay Singh resident of Village had gone to our
agricultural fields on tractor-trolley. When at time about
10:00 AM we reached at the passage near our fields then
we saw that three tractors were operating in our fields
and were destroying the mustard in our fields and about
15 persons armed with rifles, guns, sticks, farsa (sharp-
edged weapon) were standing at the katcha passage
which goes to our fields. On seeing us all of them in
connivance with each other said by raising lalkara that
today kill them. Straightway after saying this Santraj son
of Radhey Lal Gujjar resident of Bilochpur fired at me
with a rifle, which he was holding in his hands, with
intent to kill me and fire hit me on my left hand. Rajan
son of Harchand Gujjar resident of Bilochpur gave blow2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:16:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030624CRM-M-2384-2025 -3-
of farsa (sharp-edged weapon) on my head. Sukku son of
name not known resident of Bilochpur gave two blows
with rod in my waist. Pyare son of name not known,
Sahbu son of Likhi resident of Jatwari, Rajbir son of Hari
Gujjar resident of Hussaini. Manoj son of Karambir
resident of Mohana, Sonu son of Santraj resident of
Bilochpur also fired at all of us with rifles which they
were holding in their hands with intent to kill us and all
of us have been hit with bullets. I do not know the name
of other persons who were with Santraj. Santraj in order
to take possession over our 20 Acre land drove tractors
in our land and destroyed our mustard crop and have
damaged the tyres of our tractor-trolley by firing bullets.
When we raised alarm for help then Amar Singh son of
Ram Singh Gujjar resident of our village and many other
residents of village came and they saved us and at the
time of going away, assailants gave threat of killing us
any other day. After this incident Kishan son of Nathi
resident of our village admitted Chander Pal at Diamond
Hospital Palwal and admitted others at B.K. Hospital
Faridabad for medical treatment. Now I have recorded
my statement at B.K. Hospital Faridabad, heard, is
correct.”
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the specific
allegation of gunshot injury has been attributed to co-accused Santraj son of
Radhey Lal, Farsa blow has been attributed to co-accused Rajan and rod
blows has been attributed to co-accused Sukku. He further contends that no
specific role has been attributed to the petitioner except being part of the
group which caused assault. It has been contended that no gunshot injuries
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:16:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030624
CRM-M-2384-2025 -4-
were found on the person of the complainant and on an earlier occasion
finding the allegations to be false the investigating agency has presented a
cancellation report qua all the accused persons, which was accepted and
notice was served upon the complainant. The complainant filed a protest
petition before the trial Court on 04.04.2008 wherein, after recording of
preliminary evidence the said complaint was dismissed vide order dated
14.07.2010. Aggrieved against the said order, revision petition filed by the
complainant was allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal with
a direction to send the case back to the police station concerned for
investigation.
On behalf of the State/complainant
On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the
custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record.
He along with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate who has put in appearance on
behalf of the complainant and has filed Memorandum of Appearance and
seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the allegations
against the petitioner and his co-accused persons are serious in nature and
the petitioner was earlier declared proclaimed offender vide order dated
10.03.2016
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 04 months
and 06 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; no specific
role or injury has been attributed to the petitioner; the petitioner is not a
habitual offender as he is not involved in any other case, as is evident from
custody certificate in addition to the fact that the evidence is midway, which
is suffice for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial will take long
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:16:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030624
CRM-M-2384-2025 -5-
time for which the petitioner cannot be detained behind the bars for an
indefinite period.
As far as contention of learned State counsel as well as counsel
for complainant on the conduct of the petitioner, who was declared
proclaimed offender, is concerned, the said order dated 10.03.2016 is no
more in force as the petitioner is attending the trial after he surrendered on
28.10.2024 and since then he is in custody of the police.
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court
rendered in “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another“, 2018(2)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a
general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is
an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
“2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is
the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a
person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.
However, there are instances in our criminal law where a
reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard
to some specific offences but that is another matter and
does not detract from the fundamental postulate in
respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of
our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the
general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or
in a correction home (whichever expression one may
wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these
basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the
result that more and more persons are being incarcerated
and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our
criminal jurisprudence or to our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is
entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:16:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030624CRM-M-2384-2025 -6-
even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been
circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered
by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet,
occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether
denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do
on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to
be considered is whether the accused was arrested during
investigations when that person perhaps has the best
opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence
witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it
necessary to arrest an accused person during
investigations, a strong case should be made out for
placing that person in judicial custody after a charge
sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain
whether the accused was participating in the
investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating
officer and was not absconding or not appearing when
required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused
is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding
due to some genuine and expressed fear of being
victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need
to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary
for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-
time offender or has been accused of other offences and if
so, the nature of such offences and his or her general
conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an
accused is also an extremely important factor and even
Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an
Explanation to section 436 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to
incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting
section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:16:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030624CRM-M-2384-2025 -7-
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be
adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for
remanding a suspect or an accused person to police
custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for
this including maintaining the dignity of an accused
person, howsoever poor that person might be, the
requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact
that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading
to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in
In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR
(Criminal) 416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.)
408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has
been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent
decision delivered in Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of
India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609 going back to the days of
the Magna Carta. In that decision, reference was made to
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC
565 in which it is observed that it was held way back in
Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that
bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was
also made to Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931
Allahabad 356 wherein it was observed that grant of bail
is the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision for
bail is therefore age-old and the liberal interpretation to
the provision for bail is almost a century old, going back
to colonial days.
7. However, we should not be understood to mean that
bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal
of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge
hearing the matter and though that discretion is
unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a
humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions
for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:16:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030624CRM-M-2384-2025 -8-
incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of
bail illusory.”
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the
basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of
reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the
accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in “Hussainara Khatoon and
ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna“, (1980) 1 SCC 98.
Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction period of the
under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in view the nature of
accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the
nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
5. DECISION:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby directed to be released on regular bail on him furnishing bail and
surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
04.03.2025 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 05-03-2025 05:16:05 :::
[ad_1]
Source link