Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arjun vs State Of Haryana on 11 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034580
CRM-M-57294-2024 1
219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-57294-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 11.03.2025
ARJUN ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Salil Dev Singh Bali, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. B.S.Virk, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer
This petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS
(Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) Act, 2023 for grant of regular
bail in FIR No. 143, dated 09.06.2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149,
308, 323, 365 and 506 IPC, Police Station Siwani, District Bhiwani,
Haryana (Annexure P-1) in which after investigation the Challan
stands submitted under Sections 308, 323, 506, 341, 34, 325 IPC
(Annexure P-8).
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the
version in the FIR reads as under :-
‘To the SHO P.S. Siwani. Sir, it is submitted that I Arjun
Kumar @ Ankit S/o Sh. Ajay Kumar am resident of Budhshaili.
xxxx Yesterday on 08.06.2024 my uncle VedParkash has sent 5
Lakh rupees for feed in the farm. I along with my brother
Krishan at about 10 PM in the night after carrying food for1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 08:48:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034580CRM-M-57294-2024 2
Jaipal went to the Liquor Vend to get Jaipal and over there
Jaipal along with Krishan S/o Sher Singh R/o Budhshaili were
sitting. When we reached the Liquor Vend then Jaipal was
talking on his phone. We asked Jaipal to come along with us and
he said that wait for a minute and we will go. Because of this we
spent 5-10 minutes over there and at that time at the liquor vend
one Baleroalong with Balero Campor (white colour) came in
which Ishwar Singh S/o Syochand, Rajesh and Balram sons of
Ishwar Singh, Arjun Singh and Parveen sons of Rajesh, Kamal
S/o Rishal Singh, Sher Singh S/o Syoram, Jagdish S/o Sher
Singh, Happy S/o Bhagirath, Rishal Singh S/o Syoram and 3-4
other persons having Lathi, Danda and Rods got down from the
car and immediately on getting down said that catch hold of
them and put them in the car. On this I ran towards the village
and my brother Krishan (Fauji) was caught hold by them but
after getting himself free he ran towards the fields. On this they
got in their cars and went behind my brother Krishan. Krishan
S/o Sher Singh sat with them. My brother while running towards
filed fell down and all of them by force put my brother Krishan
Kumar in the car and took him towards the fields. I followed
them and called my uncle Dharamvir and Somvir. All the
aforementioned persons took my brother to the fields and over
there got him get down from the car and gave him injures with
lathi, danda and rod. My brother had Rs.5 Lakhs in cash and he
was wearing a G-Shock watch. All the persons together
snatched Rs.5 Lakhs and watch from him. Arjun and Krishan
tried to run over my brother Krishan from their cars and on this
my uncle Dharamvir, Somvir and my grandfather Kheta Singh
came and on seeing us all the aforementioned accused ran away
with their weapons in their car and while going back they
threatened to kill and said that we will pick up your sister.
After that we brought our brother to Civil Hospital, Siwani were
they followed us. Kamal Singh S/o Rishal brought the car and
tried to get me into it inside the hospital and also picked up fight
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 08:48:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034580
CRM-M-57294-2024 3
and on this the staff of the hospital close the door and called the
police. All these people were sitting in the parking of the
hospital waiting for us to come out. On this we requested police
that we should be taken to CMC Hospital Hisar as they could
again repeat the incident. Thereafter in police security we were
taken to CMC Hospital Hisar and they followed us on the way.
Now my brother is going treatment at MH Hospital Cantt. and
he is not in a state to give statement. They have given life
threatening injuries to my brother and have snatched money and
action be taken against them and me and my family be saved.
Sd/ Arjun.’
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is
no specific attribution of any injury to the petitioner. He submits that
as per the doctor opinion, the injury which are on the non-vital part
have been declared to be grievous and none of the them are life
threatening. He has argued that even if the allegations are taken as
gospel truth it would not attract Section 308 IPC and at best it would a
case under Section 325 IPC. He has further argued that that the
antecedents of the petitioner are clean, meaning thereby he is not a
habitual offender, moreso, the co-accused Balraj, Krishan Kumar and
Rajesh have already been granted concession of regular bail vide
orders dated 25.10.2024 and 7.01.2025 passed in CRM-M-52284-2024
and CRM-M-56995-2024, therefore, prays for grant of regular bail to
the petitioner.
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 08:48:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034580
CRM-M-57294-2024 4
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 is behind bars for 8 months and 05
days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the
Investigating Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail. He
submits that the injuries may be on non-vital parts but three fractures
have been reported on the person of the victim Krishan as per the
MLR, moreso, he along with other co-accused tried to run over the
injured Krishan from their cars.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be
culled out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient
incarceration i.e. 8 months and 5 days, similarly situated co-accused
has already been granted concession of bail by this Court, antecedents
of the petitioner are clean, meaning thereby he is not a habitual
offender, and the injuries were inflicted on the non-vital part of the
body and the role attributed to the petitioner is that he was holding
blunt weapon which is a debatable issue while looking at the nature of
injuries wherein it would not come under the ambit of Sections 308
and 323 IPC, 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, challan stands presented
on 08.08.2024, charges stands framed on 06.11.2024 out of 22
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 08:48:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034580
CRM-M-57294-2024 5
prosecution witnesses, only 2 PWs have been examined so far which
is sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely
to take considerable time and therefore, 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 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
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 08:48:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034580
CRM-M-57294-2024 6
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
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 08:48:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034580
CRM-M-57294-2024 7
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.”
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
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2025 08:48:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034580
CRM-M-57294-2024 8
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. Relief
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his 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
11.03.2025
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2025 08:48:26 :::
