[ad_1]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Aryan Singh @ Raja vs State Of Punjab on 21 April, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050315
CRM-M-18726-2025 -1-
213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-18726-2025
DECIDED ON: 21.04.2025
ARYAN SINGH @ RAJA
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Kr. Vikas P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG Punjab
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 439
Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 268, dated
09.12.2023, under Section 379-B (2) and 34 IPC (Sections 307 and 411 of IPC
added later on) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police
Station Jamalpur, District Ludhiana.
2. Facts
The facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
“Statement of Suraj Kumar, son of Shri Chatter Bhuj Singh
resident of House No. 1135/223, street number 9, Sarpanch
colony, bank side, Chetan Little Public school, Jamalpur
Ludhiana, age about 33 years phone No. 9646682466 that I am
resident of above mentioned address. I am running my medical
store (Rajput medicose) in front of Jain Hospital, on Chandigarh
Road. On 08.12.2023, I was present in my shop as usual and at1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-04-2025 23:53:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050315CRM-M-18726-2025 -2-
11 PM, was preparing to close my shop, then I have put my all
the luggage in one bag which includes one laptop ( HP) colour
grey, two mobile phone i.e. Samsung S 23 ultra, dark grey, Oppo
Reno-3 pio colour sky blue, cash about Rs. 1,20,000, having four
credit card, HDFC bank, Indsind Bank, IDFC bank and Kotak
Mahindra Bank, my Aadhaar card, pan card and original RC of
my car P91L01913. All three young man having trimmed hair
came to my shop upon a motorcycle and all three came inside the
shop and pointed toward me one pistol like weapon and start
threatening me and snatched my bag and demanded for more
cash. When I said that I have no other money. All the money is in
the bag, then they do not accept it and fire on my right leg with
his weapon, which hit upon my right kree and blood start oozing
from my knee and I got afraid and sit down. Then one of them try
to came inside the counter. Then I raised noise of thief- thief, then
all three along with the bag run-away from there, I have taken
treatment from Ghati Hospital. There, Dr after checkup and x-ray
stated that bullet has gone out the body. I have recorded my
statement to you, read, heard, it is correct. A legal action be
taken against above persons as per Law. Sd/- Suraj Kumar (in
English) attested Palwinder Pal ASI police station Jamalpur
Ludhiana dated 09.12.2023 police station, Jamalpur Ludhiana.”
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case just to inflate the
figure of cases. He further submits that the investigation is completed in the
present case and after framing of charges on 04.03.2024, till date no
prosecution witnesses have been examined. The petitioner is in custody for
the last one year, 4 months. He has drawn attention of this Court to an order
dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed in CRM-M-8877-2025 vide which
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-04-2025 23:53:27 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050315CRM-M-18726-2025 -3-
co-accused namely Sunil Kumar from whom one pistol and two live
cartridges were recovered, has already been granted the concession of regular
bail, whereas the case of the petitioner is at better footing.
4. On behalf of the State
Learned State counsel 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 petitioner is a habitual offender being involved
in various cases.
5. Analysis
Considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e. 1
year, 4 months and that the co-accused namely Sunil Kumar has already been
granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure
P-2) passed in CRM-M-8877-2025 and the fact that the case of the petitioner
is at better footing from him as one pistol and two live cartridges were
recovered from the co-accused namely Sunil Kumar added with the fact that
the investigation already stands concluded, challan stands presented on
20.01.2024 and after framing of charges on 04.03.2024, out of total 11
prosecution witnesses, none has been examined, meaning thereby, conclusion
of trial shall take considerable time, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, which would
curtail his right for speedy trial and expeditious disposal, as enshrined under
Article 21 of the 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 is3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-04-2025 23:53:27 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050315CRM-M-18726-2025 -4-
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 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 a4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-04-2025 23:53:27 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050315CRM-M-18726-2025 -5-
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.”
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
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-04-2025 23:53:27 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050315
CRM-M-18726-2025 -6-
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
lend the petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail.
6. Relief:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby directed to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail and
surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial
Magistrate/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)
21.04.2025 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 21-04-2025 23:53:27 :::
[ad_2]
Source link