Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gaganpreet Singh And Anr vs State Of Haryana on 23 January, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010290
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
238 CRM-M-2697-2025
DATE OF DECISION: 23.01.2025
GAGANPREET SINGH AND ANR ...PETITIONERS
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
This petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (earlier Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure-1973) for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR
No.275 dated 18.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 407,
420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Later Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471,
485, 411, 201 of IPC 1860 added) at Police Station Saha, District Ambala.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR reads as under :-
‘Sir, The copy of the application is as under: To, The Station
House Officer, Police Station Saha, District Ambala, Haryana.
Subject: Application against (1) Sultan Ram son of Munshi Ram,
Driver, (2) Truck owner Wakeel Ram son of Sultan Ram, resident of
Ward No. 8, Bilochia, B.L.M. Sri Vijay Nagar, Ganganagar,
Rajasthan, Mobile No.82353-62597, 82353-43966, (3) Sri Shyam
Logistic, owner Sumit Kumar Sharma, resident of near Dukheri
Road, Annapurna Dhaba, Mohra, District Ambala, mobile No.1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 24-01-2025 06:05:20 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0102902
99922-39197, 98701-62401, for not delivering the batteries loaded
in the truck at the prescribed time and prescribed place and
misappropriating the material. Sir, It is requested that I, Surender
Singh son of Sh. Satbir Singh am the resident of Plot No.60,
Industrial Area, Panchkula and am posted as Manager in Flying
Green Carrier Pvt. Ltd. Company, Ambala. The warehouse of the
Livfast Company is situated in Village Landa. On 09.09.2022, our
company Flying Green Carrier Pvt. Ltd. had hired a Truck No. RJ-
07-GB-3595 from Sri Shyam Logistic from Ambala to Kanpur. In
this truck, 435 batteries of Livfast Company were loaded, the
invoice number of which is 22-23/1566950469, the bilty number is
111424. On 09.09.2022, the truck No.RJ-07-GB- 3595 of Sri
Shyam Logistic had proceeded from Flying Green Carrier Pvt. Ltd.
Ambala for Kanpur. In the said vehicle accused No.1 Sultan Ram
son of Munshi Ram, resident of Ward No.8 Bilochia, B.L.M. Sri
Vijay Nagar, Ganganagar, Rajasthan was the driver. He had
proceeded after perfectly loading of the vehicle. He had to reach
Livfast Batteries Pvt. Ld. C/o Taneja, RG No.485/503, Rampur
Bhimsain, Near Railway Station, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh 208020,
on 12.09.2022. But upon the lapse of many days, our material did
not reach the destination. Then I contacted on phone
No.8235362597 of the driver, but the phone number of the driver
was switched off. Till today, neither the whereabouts of the vehicle
nor the material and nor of the driver are known. That I apprehend
that Sumit Kumar Sharma in connivance with the driver Sultan
Ram and his son Wakeel Ram, have misplaced our material (435
batteries, valuing at Rs. 34,63,093/-) in a deceitful manner. The
accused Sultan Ram, Wakeel Ram andSumit Kumar Sharma have
misplaced the material of our company and have misappropriated
the same. Legal action be taken against the accused Sultan Ram,
Wakeel Ram and Sumit Kumar Sharma and our material may be
got recovered. Dated: 18.09.2022. Sd/ Surender Singh son of
Satbir Singh, mobile No.95011-66555…..”
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 24-01-2025 06:05:20 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010290
3
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case they were not
named in the instant FIR and had been roped in the instant case. He
submits that the petitioners are neither the owner nor the driver of the
truck, moreso, they are not the owner of the company through whom the
truck was hired by the complainant. He points out that the petitioners are
not involved in any other case, meaning thereby they are not habitual
offender. He further points out that co-accused namely Simrandeep
Singh @ Sunny has already been granted benefit of concession of
regular bail by this Court vide order dated 14.1.2025 passed in CRM-
M-50550-2024, therefore, prays for grant of regular bail to the
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 petitioners, which are taken on record.
According to which, the petitioners are behind bars for 5 months and 11
days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the
petitioners along with co-accused has actively participated in the
commissioning of the offence but is not in a position to controvert the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 24-01-2025 06:05:20 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010290
4
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be culled
out that the petitioners have already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 5
months and 11 days each, similarly situated co-accused has already been
granted concession of bail by this Court, antecedents of the petitioners are
clean, meaning thereby they are not habitual offender, 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 28.10.2024 charges stands
framed on 04.01.2025 out of 23 prosecution witnesses, none has 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 petitioners 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 general4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 24-01-2025 06:05:20 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0102905
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 to5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 24-01-2025 06:05:20 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0102906
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
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
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 24-01-2025 06:05:20 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010290
7
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
petitioners are directed to be released on regular bail on their 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
23.01.2025
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2025 06:05:20 :::
[ad_1]
Source link