Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anmol Alias Cheeka Prashant vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030303
1
227 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-59165-2024
Date of Decision:04.03.2025
ANMOL ALIAS CHEEKA PRASHANT ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. (Oral)
1. Relief sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section
483 of The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) praying for grant of
regular bail to the Petitioner in case bearing F.I.R.No. 88 Dated 18.03.2023
under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471,120-B IPC and Section 19, 20
Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 registered at Police
Station Dera Bassi, District S.A.S.Nagar (Annexure P-1).
2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in
the FIR as under:-
“First Information Contents: Copy of Information Jai Hind”
Incharge Police Station, Dera Bassi, District S.A.S.Nagar.
Todayh I S.I. alongwith S.I. Sathir Singh No.788/S. A S
Nagar, Havaldar Harpreet Singh No.815/S A S Nagar and C-
2 Varinder Singh No.93/S A S Nagar were present at bus
stand Dera Bassi on patrolling and checking of suspicious
persons and for search of suspected vehicles then one secret
informer has given one separate information by coming
present near to me S.I. that person namely Raj Narain
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:29:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030303
2
resident of U.P. by meeting with some unknown persons by
preparing forged signatures of persons of selling and
purchasing of kidneys while conniving with employees of
Indus Hospital Janetpur, Dera Bassi, District S.A.S.Nagar by
giving tempatation of money to the general public have been
running the racket of kidney transplant and by the employees
of above said hospital by making hungling bungling in
samples before doing kidney transplant have been
transplanting the kidneys. That the information being
confirmed and reliable fulfilled the ingredients of offence
under Section 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Sec 19,20
Transplantation of human Organs and Tissues Act 1994 is
made out against Raj Narain resident of U.P., unknown
persons and employees of Indus Hospital Janetpur Dera
Bassi, District S.A.S.Nagar for giving tempatations of money
to the ordinary people by inducing them by forging
signatures illegally. AS such information is being sent
through C-2 Varinder Singh No.93/S A S Nagar to Police
Station for registration of FIR under the said offences against
above said persons and employee, by registering case
number be informed. Information be given at control Room. I
S.I. alongwith companion employees is going to Indus
Hospital for investigation. Sd/- Ashok Kumar, ASI Police
Station Dera Bassi, District S.A.S.Nagar, Dated 18.03.2023
at Bus Stand Dera Bassi, District S.A.S.Nagar at: 10-30 PM”
3. Contentions on behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the the FIR has
been registered by the police in collusion with the complainant as there is no
private complainant and the same is lodged on the basis of secret
information under Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994,
and therein only one Raj Narain is named as an accused. He further submits
that the co-accused Raj Narain has been granted the concession of regular
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:29:48 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030303
3
bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S.Nagar (Mohali) vide
order dated 10.8.2023 (Annexure P-2), co-accused Abhishek Kumar has
been granted regular bail by this Hon’ble High Court vide order dated
11.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) and Dr. Surinderpal Singh Bedi has been
granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide interim order dated 17.5.2023
(Annexure P-4) and final order dated 12.2.2024 (Annexure P-5).
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the
custody certificate issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Prison, Central
Jail No.3, Tihar, New Delhi, of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken
on record. He seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that
offence is of grave nature and is against society at large.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 06 months
and 20 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; the
petitioner was nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure
statement of main accused Raj Narain, who was admitted to regular bail, in
addition to the fact that investigation is complete, challan stands presented
to Court on 28.11.2024, charges are yet to be framed and total 43
prosecution witnesses have been cited, which is suffice for this Court to
infer that the conclusion of trial will take long time for which the petitioner
cannot be detained behind the bars for an indefinite period.
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court
rendered in “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another“, 2018(2)
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:29:48 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030303
4
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 but 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
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:29:48 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030303
5
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.
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
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:29:48 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030303
6
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 be 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.
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-03-2025 05:29:48 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030303
7
5. RELIEF:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby directed to be released on regular bail on his 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)
JUDGE
04.03.2025
kv
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 05-03-2025 05:29:48 :::
[ad_1]
Source link