Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nanak Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 April, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047620
CRM-M-15142-2025 -1-
217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-15142-2025
DECIDED ON: 07.04.2025
NANAK SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Vishva Bahl, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section
483 BNSS for grant of regular bail to petitioner in FIR No. 235 dated
10.12.2023 registered under sections 307, 332, 353, 186, 224, 225, 506 IPC
1860 at Police Station Gate Hakima, District Police Commissionerate
Amritsar.
2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in
the FIR as under:-
“Station House Officer Gate Hakima “Jai Hind Today I SI
along with ASI Malkeet Singh 2315, ASI Dilbagh Singh 660,
C Constable Rajwant Singh 2915, Constable Manpreet Singh
3010 along with the accused persons in FIR No. 234 dated
10.12 2023 registered under section 21-B. 29/61/85 NDPS
Act, police station Gate Hakima, Amritsar namely 1. Roop1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 08-04-2025 18:03:08 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047620CRM-M-15142-2025 -2-
Singh alias Rupa son of Mahinder Singh, resident of House
no. 107, street no. 2, New Kot Atma Ram, Sultanwind Road,
Amritsar. 2. Gagandeep Singh alias Gaggi son of Satnam
Singh, resident of street no. 4. Angarh Amritsar have raided
the house of newly added accused in the case namely Nanak
Singh son of Gurdeep Singh, resident of street no. 4, Angarh,
Amritsar and Vikram Singh alias Vicky son of Gurdeep Singh,
resident of street no. 4, Angarh Amritsar. The accused Nanak
Singh above said on seeing the police party had run away and
went on to the roof, I SI left ASI Malkeet Singh 2315 and C.
Rajwant Singh 2915 with the arrested accused and along with
other officials had gone to the roof and apprehended accused
of case namely Nanak Singh above said, he suddenly started
throwing brickbat upon police and then Nanak Singh above
said forcefully had tried to run away from the police and
started pooling himself from the police, some ladies also
started pushing the police out of which one lady who was
handicap from leg and was not able to walk properly and one
another young person came along with police party and
started abusing and the above said ladies and the young
person forcefully started pushing and pooling with us and
started tried to save Nanak Singh from the clutches of polices,
due to all this tussle and fight with the police in which the
jacket and shirt of uniform of ASI Dilbag Singh and constable
Manpreet Singh got torn and Nanak Singh due to all this has
escaped from the police party and run away and then the
another young person and both ladies and some unknown
persons and ladies started throwing bricks and stones from
the roof over the police party, one of stone was hit with an
intention to kill by one young person on constable Manpreet
Singh on his head with an intention to kill. Due to which he
got injured. The person who had given head injury to
constable Manpreet Singh he was found out to be another
named accused of above said case namely Vikram Singh alias
Vicky, all the above said persons and ladies got escaped
Nanak Singh from the police party forcefully and after giving
threatenings they had run away. the persons who had fought2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 08-04-2025 18:03:08 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047620CRM-M-15142-2025 -3-
with police and Nanak Singh who was required in the above
said case has forcefully been taken away, their identification
will be done from the spot, they have been identified as Nanak
Singh son of Gurdeep Singh, Vikram Singh alias Vicky son of
Gurdeep Singh, Geeta daughter of Gurdeep Singh and
Poonam wife of Nanak Singh, residents of street no. 4 Angarh
Police Station Gate Hakima, Amritsar remaining persons will
be identified later on. The above said accused by taking away
the named accused Nanak Singh from the police custody and
by doing life threatening attack on police party and by tearing
the uniform of police officials and by injuring the police
official have committed offence under section 307, 332, 353,
186, 224, 225, 506 IPC, I SI along with other officials are
busy at the spot in the investigation of the case, therefore, FIR
be registered against Nanak Singh son of Gurdeep Singh,
Vikram Singh alias Vicky son of Gurdeep Singh, Geeta
daughter of Gurdeep Singh and Poonam wife of Nanak Singh,
residents of street no. 4, Angarh Amritsar, for registration of
FIR ruqa is being sent by hand constable Rajwant Singh 2915
to police station, after registration of FIR its number may be
informed, special reports may be issued to Illaqa Magistrate
and higher officers. Control room may be informed. I SI along
with fellow employees is busy in investigation at the spot.
Today at area Angarh Amritsar at 09.40 PM sd/-Balwinde
Singh SI Incharge Chowk Angarh Police Station Gate
Hakima, Amritsar dated 10.12.2023.”
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is
at parity with co-accused Vikram Singh @ Vicky, who has already been
granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated
04.03.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed in CRM-M-2231-2025. He further
contends that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 08-04-2025 18:03:08 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047620
CRM-M-15142-2025 -4-
basis of disclosure statement of co-accused namely Roop Singh @ Rupa. It
has been further contended that the police party raided the house of the
present petitioner but at that time he was not present at his house.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the
custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record.
He seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the petitioner is
a habitual offender as he is involved in two other cases.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 09 months
and 09 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; the petitioner
is at parity with co-accused Vikram Singh @ Vicky, who has already been
granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated
04.03.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed in CRM-M-2231-2025 and the fact that
the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of
disclosure statement of co-accused namely Roop Singh @ Rupa.
Also considering the fact that investigation is complete, challan
stands presented to Court on 23.09.2024, charges have been framed on
19.02.2025 and out of total 14 prosecution witnesses none has been
examined so far, 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)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 08-04-2025 18:03:08 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047620
CRM-M-15142-2025 -5-
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
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 when5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 08-04-2025 18:03:08 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047620CRM-M-15142-2025 -6-
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
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
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 08-04-2025 18:03:08 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047620
CRM-M-15142-2025 -7-
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.
As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the
petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order
of this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as “Baljinder Singh
alias Rock vs. State of Punjab” decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, while
referring Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court has held that no
doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 08-04-2025 18:03:08 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047620
CRM-M-15142-2025 -8-
are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the
appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with
reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the
evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to
the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions
in all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of
concession of bail.
5. RELIEF:
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)
07.04.2025 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 08-04-2025 18:03:08 :::
[ad_1]
Source link