Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006164
CRM-M-64900-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
234 CRM-M-64900-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 16.01.2025
GURDEEP SINGH ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. GVS Behl, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. T.S. Grewal, Advocate for the respondent.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under
Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.42 dated
25.06.2024 registered under Sections 307, 379-B, 506, 148, 149, 120-B
IPC (Sections 323, 324, 325, 326 and 201 IPC added later on) at Police
Station Sadar Ahmedgarh, District Malerkotla.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR reads as under :-
‘Statement of Kulwant Singh, son of Darbara Singh, resident
of Borhai Kalan, Police Station SadarAhmedgarh, aged about 42
years, Mobile No.98722-92554. Stated that I am residing on the
aforementioned address and doing agricultural work. On
23.06.2024, at about 4:30/5:00 PM, I was going to home on my
motorcycle after ploughing my field at Village Borhai Kalan, then I
saw that four unknown persons having age between 20 to 25 years
were standing on my field along with two motorcycles out of which
three hair-shorn persons were having iron rods and another was1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 07:13:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006164CRM-M-64900-2024
2Sikh with long beard, who was having Kirch (sword). I can identify
them if they be produced before me. On seeing me, they alighted
from their motorcycle and all of them caught hold of me; pull me
down from the motorcycle and snatched my mobile phone having
SIM No.98722- ht 92554. Then three of the assailants started
hitting iron rod on my head, left leg and left leg with an intention
to kill me due to which my right leg got fractured and left leg
became wounded. I raised alarm but all of them gave me threats to
Kirch kill me and unknown Sikh person hit his sword (Kirch) thrice
on my right shoulder, elbow joint of right arm and right hip with
an intention to kill me due to which I became unconscious. While
leaving the spot, one of the hair-shorn persons hit iron rod on my
head but I raised my hand in order to save myself due to which the
rod hit on the fingers of my right hand. One of them hit iron rod on
my back and another continuously hit on my left leg and right
cheek. Then all the assailants left the spot along with their
respective weapons on their motorcycles where after I gained
consciousness and started screaming upon which my companion
Jagdev Singh son of Major Singh resident of Mahauli Khurd came
there, who was working near my fields. I told him to arrange a car
and he came back after few minutes along with Gurjeet Singh
resident of Borhai Kalan on his car, who took me to Civil Hospital,
Malerkotla for medical treatment but they referred me to Rajindra
Hospital, Patiala where after I got referred to PGI, Chandigarh
but I got admitted in DMC Ludhiana where I am undergoing
treatment. Iqbal Singh, son of my uncle (Taya)- Harchand Singh,
resident of Borhai Kalan in collusion with other four unknown
persons attacked me because this year I myself started ploughing
my land and I get large portion of water from the motor.
Previously, I gave my land on lease. Apart from this, some dispute
arose between me and Iqbal Singh on account of which he in
collusion with his four unknown companions assaulted me. Strict
legal action be taken against them. Print out of the statement of
injured Kulwant Singh was taken the contents whereof were read
over to him and after admitting it to be correct, he signed the same
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 07:13:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006164
CRM-M-64900-2024
3
in Punjabi language which was attested by ASI Gurmeet Singh
No.2437/SNG.’
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was neither named in the present FIR nor any incriminating
material is coming forth to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime.
He further submits that there is unexplained delay of 2 days in lodging the
present FIR. He contends that neither any weapon has been recovered
from the petitioner nor any injury has been attributed to him. He further
submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other case, meaning
thereby he is not a habitual offender.
On behalf of the State and complainant
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 6 months and 10
days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer and counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer for grant of
regular bail stating that the petitioner along with other co-accused armed
with kirpan have assaulted the complainant with an intention to kill and
forcibly snatch many articles from them and on the asking of co-accused-
Iqbal gave injury to the complainant, therefore, prays for dismissal of the
petition.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be culled
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 07:13:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006164
CRM-M-64900-2024
4
out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 6
months and 10 days, antecedents of the petitioner are clean, meaning
thereby he is not a habitual offender, the only allegation qua him is that he
was carrying kirpan but no injury has been attributed to him, 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 24.09.2024 charges are yet to be
framed, out of 17 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 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
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 07:13:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006164
CRM-M-64900-2024
5
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
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 07:13:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006164
CRM-M-64900-2024
6
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
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
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 07:13:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006164
CRM-M-64900-2024
7
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 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
16.01.2025
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2025 07:13:58 :::
[ad_1]
Source link