[ad_1]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arun Kumar Alias Papi vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 April, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051404
CRM-M-19121-2025 -1-
229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-19121-2025
DECIDED ON: 22.04.2025
ARUN KUMAR ALIAS PAPI
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ranwant Singh Sangha, Advocate for the complainant.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the 2nd time
under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.48 dated 28.04.2024 under Sections 307, 323, 324, 148, 149 of IPC and
Section 326 of IPC added later on registered at Police Station Division No.7,
Police Commissionerate District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1).
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
“Statement of Ashu wife of Late Bala, resident of House No.72, Near Pandit
Karyana store, Kharada Wali Gali, Phagwari Mohalla, Garha, Jalandhar,
aged about 38 years, M.No.98784-86172. Stated that I am resident ofabovesaid address and I am having two sons, among them, name of elder
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-04-2025 04:02:52 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051404CRM-M-19121-2025 -2-
son is Aman alias Gosha, aged about 17 years and who after leaving study
as he failed in 9th class last year, was residing in the house. Yesterday on
27.04.2024 at about 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., I alongwith my son Aman
was coming to my house after worshiping in Geeta Mandir and alongwith
us, Harsh son of Mukesh Kumar, resident of Tara Chand Colony Garha wasalso coming. My son Aman and Harsh were going ahead and I was coming
behind them. When my son Aman and Harsh reached in front of the shop of
Dr. Bhardwaj, Mohalla Balimk Garha, Jalandhar then from backside, Veeru,Kamal alias Mitha, Arun, Prabh, residents of Tanki Mohalla Garha
Jlandhar and Smiley alongwith 6-7 unidentified youngsters on various
motorcycle and Activa number of which I could not read came there. Among
them, Veeru gave datar blow on the head of my son Aman with an intention
to kill. My son raised his left hand in order to save and datar blow of Veeru
hit on his left hand. In meanwhile, Aman alias Mitha, Prabh and Smiley
gave khandia blow on the head of my son with an
intention to kill, due to which my son fell down on the ground. On seeing this
entire incident, Harsh for saving himself ran away from the spot from the
streets.Arun alongwith his 6-7 unidentified persons gave datar blows from
reverse side to my son while he was lying down and gave beatings with
baseballs. I raised alarm loudly mar ditta mar ditta. Then on seeing
gathering of the people, above mentioned all the assailants ran away from
the spot with their respective weapons on their vehicles while giving threats.
On seeing all this, I started feeling dizzy. On that, my mother Surjit Kaur
arranged a conveyance and rushed me and my son Aman to Civil Hospital,
Jalandhar. Due to much injuries,doctor prepared my MLR and gave
treatments and In meanwhile, I also reached at Civil Hospital. Doctor said
that my son received many injuries andhis condition is critical and asked me
to send him at some other hospital. On that, my mother arranged an
ambulance and took my son Aman to NHS
Hospital, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar and got him admitted there. Now my
son is unconscious in ICU. Kindly an appropriate legal action may kindly be
taken against Veeru, Kamal alias Mitha, Arun, Prabh, residents of Tanki
Mohalla, Garha, Jalandhar and Smiley and his 6-7 unidentified persons.
After taking MR of my son from Civil Hospital, Jalandhar I will produce
before you. Statement has been recorded, heard and is correct. Sd/-(Punjab),
Ashu.”
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-04-2025 04:02:53 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051404
CRM-M-19121-2025 -3-
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
matter has been compromised between the parties on the basis of compromise
dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-3), with the intervention of the respectable of
the society, the complainant does not want to pursue with the matter any
further. He further submits that a petition bearing No. CRM-M-16504-2025
for quashing of FIR on the basis of said compromise, has already been
preferred, in which notice of motion was issued. He further contends that co-
accused Prabhjot Singh @ Prabh has already been granted concession of
regular bail vide order dated 1.4.2025 passed by this Court in CRM-M-15653-
2025.
On behalf of the State/complainant
On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on advance
notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has filed the custody
certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. According to which, the
petitioner is behind bars for 7 month and 6 days, however submits that the
petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in other FIRs also but could
not controvert the factum of compromise dated 17.03.2025.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant admits
the factum of compromise (Annexure P-3) and also endorsed no objection, in
case the present petition is allowed and petitioner is enlarged on bail.
4. Analysis
Considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e., 7
months and 6 days; co-accused has already been granted concession of regular
bail, moreover, parties have already settled the matter and therefore, chances
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-04-2025 04:02:53 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051404
CRM-M-19121-2025 -4-
of acquittal cannot be ruled out, added with the fact that investigation is
complete, challan stands presented on 26.10.2024, charges have been framed
on 13.01.2025 and out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, none has been
examined so far. This Court is sanguine of the fact that conclusion of trial shall
take considerable time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
petitioner behind bars for uncertain period, wherein “bail is a rule and jail is
an exception” and it would also violate the principle of right to speedy trial
and expeditious disposal under Article 21 of Constitution of India, as has been
time and again discussed by this Court, while relying upon the judgment of the
Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. 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 but4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-04-2025 04:02:53 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051404CRM-M-19121-2025 -5-
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.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be
adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-04-2025 04:02:53 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051404
CRM-M-19121-2025 -6-
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 be incapable of compliance,
thereby making the grant of bail illusory.”
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-04-2025 04:02:53 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051404
CRM-M-19121-2025 -7-
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 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 the concession of bail.
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-04-2025 04:02:53 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051404
CRM-M-19121-2025 -8-
5. Relief:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby directed to be released on regular bail on 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)
22.04.2025 JUDGE
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 23-04-2025 04:02:53 :::
[ad_2]
Source link