Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahil vs State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009517
CRM-M-2380-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
227 CRM-M-2380-2025
DECIDED ON: 22.01.2025
SAHIL
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate with
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023., has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a
case bearing FIR No.53, dated 04.03.2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149,
212, 302, 341 and 120-B IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, 1959,
registered at Police Station Sadar Hansi, Police District Hansi, District
Hisar.
2. Facts
Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR read as under :-
“Statement of Balwant Singh S/o Juglal, resident of
Kanwari, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar, aged 48 years,
Mobile No.94660-51760. Stated that, I am resident of
abovementioned address and is an agriculturist by1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 23-01-2025 05:14:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009517CRM-M-2380-2025 2
profession. We are three brother and all are married. I am
the eldest, thereafter, Nar Singh @ Sanjay who is present
Sarpanch of the Village and younger one is Charan Singh.
On dated 03.03.2024, there was marriage of Vikram
nephew of Banwari son of Kundan, in which my brother
Nar Singh @ Sanjay went to attend the marriage. In the
evening at about 08/8:15 P.M, when my brother Nar Singh
@ Sanjay when returning from the marriage in his car
bearing registration No.HR-51BZ-3313 Marka Creta of
white colour. At that time, me and Dharampal S/o Ram
Kumar, both were sitting on the Chhabutra of Dharmpal’s
house. When my brother Nar Singh @ Sanjay alongwith
his car reached in front of Karan S/o Mahavir’s house,
then at that time, 3/4 unknown persons were hiding
themselves alongwith pistols in their hands. When Nar
Singh’s car reach there, then those boys on the directions
of Karan S/o Mahavir, suddenly came in front of the car of
my brother Nar Singh @ Sanjay to kill him, due to which
my brother stopped the car, then they fired upon my
brother. Bullets hit on the stomach and shoulder of my
brothers. Due to bullet injuries suffered by my brother Nar
Singh @ Sanjay, he fell unconscious in the car. When on
hearing the noise we ran towards the car, then above said
young boys while firing said loudly that Karan Bhai your
work is completed and if in future anybody create any
problem, then tell us, we will give same treatment to him
also. As I reached towards the spot, I saw, Suresh,
Shamsher, Kuldeep, Kuldeep and Sandeep sons of Dhoop
Singh, Charan Singh and Chattar Singh fleeing away from
the spot. I saw all of them are involved in conspiracy to
commit the murder of my brother. As I reached on the
spot, I saw Krishna, Binu and Sheela standing on the spot
and on seeing me they went inside the house. I alongwith
family members shifted my brother to hospital, where he2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 23-01-2025 05:14:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009517CRM-M-2380-2025 3
was declared brought dead. Motive behind the occurrence
is that Karan S/o Mahabir and other accused were having
grudge against my brother and earlier also they attacked
on our house and false FIR under Section 307 was got
registered against my brother Nar Singh @ Sanjay. Suresh
S/o Gyani Ram has contested the election for the post of
Sarpanch against my brother Nar Singh @ Sanjay and
Suresh lose the election. On the instance of Karan S/ o
Mahabir, R/o Kanwari, these abovementioned accused
have fired on my brother and committed his murder. Strict
legal action be taken against all the above accused
persons. I recorded my statement to you, heard, which is
correct. Sd/- Police Proceedings XXXXX”
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner has falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of
disclosure statement of the co-accused namely Sumit and Aman.
Moreover, except hatching conspiracy along-with the other co-accused no
overt act has been attributed to the present petitioner.
On behalf of the State
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 has suffered incarceration for a period
of 10 months and 8 days, as of now. He prays for dismissal of the present
petition stating that the petitioner has played an active role in
commissioning of offence. He informs the Court that in the present FIR
investigation is completed and challan stands presented on 30.05.2024
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 23-01-2025 05:14:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009517
CRM-M-2380-2025 4
and 29.10.2024, wherein the prosecution has cited 41 prosecution
witnesses and charges are yet to be framed.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner is
not named in the present FIR and has been nominated on the basis of
disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused namely Sumit and Aman,
except for hatching a conspiracy no overt act has been attributed to him,
who is a person of clean antecedents, added with the fact that
investigation is completed and challan stands presented wherein, the
prosecution has cited 41 prosecution witnesses, meaning thereby,
conclusion of trial shall take considerable time and detaining the
petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose
and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be
considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
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 have4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 23-01-2025 05:14:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009517CRM-M-2380-2025 5
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 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
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 23-01-2025 05:14:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009517
CRM-M-2380-2025 6
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.”
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the
fundamental law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and
just procedure guaranteed 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
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 23-01-2025 05:14:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009517
CRM-M-2380-2025 7
supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
5. Decision:
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail subject to his
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate, concerned.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
22.01.2025
sham
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2025 05:14:21 :::
[ad_1]
Source link