Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anuj Alias Amarnath vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 16 January, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006158
CRM-M-1001-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
250 CRM-M-1001-2025
DATE OF DECISION: 16.01.2025
ANUJ @ AMARNATH
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF U.T., CHANDIGARH
... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, APP, UT, Chandigarh.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
This petition has been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S, 2023
for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 129 dated 18.10.2022
under Sections 363, 34 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 302, 365, 201, 120-B,
and 364 IPC added later on registered at Police Station Mauli Jagran,
Chandigarh (Annexure P-1).
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR reads as under :-
” Statement of Ranjay Kumar S/o Basant Paswan, village
Karsav, PS Karsav, District Aurangabad (Bihar) Age26 yrs.
Stated that I am residing at above mentioned address along with
my family and I work as Driver at Moga Punjab. We are two
brothers and three sisters. That my younger brother Dhananjay
aged about 23 years was living in Chandigarh from last 4-5
years and he used to work on lathe Machine at Industrial Area1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 07:18:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006158CRM-M-1001-2025 2
and my brother Dhananjay used to talk to his mother and my
wife on the phone at home and asked about their well being. My
wife used to tell me about Dhanajay’s phone call. That on
06.10.2022 one boy named Ram Singh called from M-
8968069410 on my wife Sunita Devi phone no. M- 9060976422.
Who inquired about Dhananjay arrival and whether he has
reached home or not. My wife told that Dhanajay did not come
home and then my wife told about the call that this boy is asking
about Dhanajay. Then I took the phone number from my wife’s
phone and I spoke on phone no. 8968069410 from my phone
number 9801123437. A person named Ram Singh spoke on this
phone and told that your brother is missing from so many days.
You should go and meet a lady named Shalu in this regard. She
will tell you the whole thing. Ram Singh gave me Shalu’s phone
number 9988366506 I spoke to Shalu from my phone. Shalu told
me that this cannot be discussed over the phone. She told me to
come Chandigarh, I left my village Karsav Nighar and reached
Chandigarh railway station where I spoke to Shalu over the
phone. Then Shalu met me at Chandigarh railway station. Shalu
told me about the incident that happened with my brother
Dhananjay and her, that I was married to Nempal and I have
four children and we lived in House no.19, Village Mauli and my
husband used to drink alcohol often and was addicted to alcohol
and after drinking alcohol he used to beat Shal and did not even
give money for the household expenses. And during this period a
boy named Dhananjay lived in the adjacent room and Shalu
started talking to that boy and first she started talking about her
household matters, he also gave me money and helped me and
we fall I love with each other and are meetings continued and
one day we both left from here and went to Rajasthan Jaipur and
during this time I became pregnant and our expenses ended and
Dhanajay told me that his PF is deposited in Chandigarh. We
will go and withdraw it. Then we both came to Chandigarh and
started living in a room in village Budhanpur and after 2-3 days
Dhananjay went to Zirakpur in the afternoon for some work and2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 07:18:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006158CRM-M-1001-2025 3
did not return till evening and I called Dhananjay again but the
phone was switched off. Next day morning at about 07:00 AM I
got a call from my mother Kamlesh on my phone then my mother
told me that Nempal has come to my room with a boy Dhanajay.
You came and talk to him. They had an arguments and fight and
then Nempal called his 3-4 friends and in sometime 3-4 boys
came and took Dhanajay in an auto. Then when I asked Nempal
about Dhanajay he told me that I made him understood and put
him on the train and my husband told me to come with him. I
refused my husband. During this time I kept calling Dhanajay on
his phone. But Dhanajay’s phone remained switched off. This
incident is of Thrusday, 29.10.2022. Regarding which I have
reported him missing at the police Mauli Jagran on 07.10.2022.
I suspect that my brother Dhanajay has been beaten up and
made to disappear by Nempal along-with his 3-4 friends. I
myself have searched alot for my brother Dhanajay but not have
found him yet. My brother Dhanajay should be searched and
legal actions should be taken against Nempal and his 3-4
companions and this matter should be investigated thoroughly
and my brother Dhanajy should be traced that where has
Nempal taken Dhananjay with him 3-4 companion. State has
been recorded, heard and correct.
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been made as a scapegoat in the present case and there is no cogent
evidence to connect him in commissioning of offence. As per the case of
the prosecution one pair of slippers are alleged to have been recovered by
the police from the jungle area on the basis of disclosure suffered by the
petitioner, however, there is nothing on record to suggest that the said
slippers belonged to the deceased. The whole case is based upon the
circumstantial evidence and no incriminating substance is coming
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 07:18:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006158
CRM-M-1001-2025 4
forward to connect the petitioner with the present case. The instant case
revolves around the statement made by Shallu, who has turned hostile. He
further submits that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean, as she is
not involved in any other case.
On behalf of the State
Learned counsel for UT Chandigarh has filed the custody
certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. He prays for
dismissal of the present petition on the ground that the allegations against
the petitioner are of serious nature.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the fact that there is no direct
material evidence available with the prosecution to connect the present
petitioner with the commissioning of offence; the petitioner has already
suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 2 years, 2 months and 22 days and is
not involved in any other case, as is evident from the perusal of the
custody certificate and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence,
no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond
reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case, charges stands framed on
16.05.2023 and out of total 37 prosecution witnesses, only 4 have been
examined, which is sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of
trial is likely to take considerable time and detaining the petitioner behind
the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose.
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
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 07:18:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006158
CRM-M-1001-2025 5
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
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 factor5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 07:18:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006158CRM-M-1001-2025 6
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 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
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 07:18:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006158
CRM-M-1001-2025 7
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 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 aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on her furnishing bail
and 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
16.01.2025
sham
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2025 07:18:15 :::
[ad_1]
Source link