Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parvinder Malik @ Dabbu vs State Of Haryana And Another on 29 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013265
CRA-S-1770--2024 (O&M) 1
CRA-S-1209--2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-1487--2024 and
CRA-S-2970--2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(201) Date of Decision : 29.01.2025
1. CRA-S-1770
1770-2024 (O&M)
Harpal Singh @ Lillu ...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
2. CRA-S-1209
1209-2024 (O&M)
Parvinder Malik @ Dabbu ...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
3. CRA-S-1487
1487-2024
Nitesh Kumar @ Nitu ...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
4. CRA-S-2970
2970-2024
Daman Arora ...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-S-1209
1209-2024.
Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-S-1770
1770-2024.
1 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 01-02-2025 10:57:48 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013265
CRA-S-1770--2024 (O&M) 2
CRA-S-1209--2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-1487--2024 and
CRA-S-2970--2024
Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate
Mr. Rajender Kumar, Advocate and
Ms. Sweta Beniwal, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-S-1487
1487-2024.
Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate for
Ms. Veena Hooda, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-S-2970
2970-2024.
Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate and
Mr. Parth Aneja, Advocate
for respondent No.2/complainant in all the cases.
****
KULDEEP TIWARI,
TIWARI J.
CRM-19397
19397-2024 in CRA-S-1770-2024
For the good and valid reasons assigned in the application, the
delay of 406 days in filing the appeal, is condoned.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
CRM-13373
13373-2024 in CRA-S-1209-2024
For the good and valid reasons assigned in the application, the
delay of 245 days in filing the appeal, is condoned.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Main Case(s)
1. All the four above mentioned instant appeals are amenable to be
decided together, as the common relief of regular bail has been sought therein,
therein
in case FIR No.164,
No. dated 16.04.2022,, under Section
Sectionss 148, 149, 302, 307,
323, 506, 379-B,
379 120-B
B and 201 of the IPC, 1860, and under Sections 25 and
29
9 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 3 of Schedule Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station
Sector-17,
17, HUDA, Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar, therefore, all the above instant
2 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 01-02-2025 10:57:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013265
CRA-S-1770–2024 (O&M) 3
CRA-S-1209–2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-1487–2024 and
CRA-S-2970–2024
appeals are taken up together for adjudication.
adjudication.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The instant FIR, has been registered on a statement suffered by
one namely, Mohit Sharma,
Sharma, who is alleged to be an injured eye witness. The
relevant extract of the statement, which become the bedrock for registration of
the FIR (supra), is extracted hereinafter :-
:
“Statement as follows that I am resident of the mentioned
address and work as a sales man
man. On 15.04.2022 I had
come to Yamuna Nagar from Ludhiana Punjab for my
sister’s
r’s wedding. On 15.4.2022 I along with Janu, Bobby
@ Akash, Shanu and Bittu and Rajat by boarding in Car
No HR02AF 5000 Mark a Safari of Janu. we left for
Vintage Grill Palace Jagadhri at around 9:30 pm to attend
the marriage from the house of Janu S/o Raj
Rajindra
indra Balmiki
and when after attending the marriage function at around
12:45 AM we started going back at night and as soon as
we came out of the gate of Vintage Grill at the same time
as soon as we started sitting in the car at once 15
15-20
20 boys
came with revolvers
volvers and country made guns in their hands
and shouted as soon as they came, they proclaimed that
Janu has to be killed today and everybody started firing
from their arms holding in their hands, out of which I
recognized some boys who are Manoj alias Sha
Shanti
nti resident
of Bhatia Nagar, Sachin Pandit resident of Sudhail and
Sumit resident of Unheri and I can identify others when
they come before me and one of them shot at my left leg
and the other boy’s name and address unknown to me fired
a shot that hit my left leg and others also shot me on my
left leg and other boys challenged and said that Janu
Chude Chamar, tu kahan jayega, tu hamare se pahle bhi
bach gaya tha, ab aaj tujhe jaan se marenge and they
3 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 01-02-2025 10:57:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013265
CRA-S-1770–2024 (O&M) 4
CRA-S-1209–2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-1487–2024 and
CRA-S-2970–2024
surrounded and shot Janu and shot him in the stomach and
other parts of body. I had fallen down and they thought
that I am dead, they attacked my other companions Rajat
Kaushal S/o Amit resident of near City Centre Road,
Yamuna Nagar. They were also taking one name of Anmol
and he was also shot and at the same time Janu fell down
on the spot and became unconscious. As soon as people
present in the wedding ceremony started making noise,
Sachin Pandit etc. ran away from the spot along with their
weapons and continued firing even while running and they
were threatening
ing that those who have been left, would be
killed later. Jaanu was admitted to Gaba Hospital by the
persons who had come to marriage function but he died
due to the bullets shot fired.. As such legal action be taken
against Sachin Pandit and his other 15
15-16
16 associates and
that I have recorded my statement during treatment in the
Gaba hospital which I have listened, read over and found
sarme to be correct. Sd/– Mohit Sharma.”
3. During the investigation, the scene of crime was got examined,
by the team of FSL, and material evidence were collected from the spot,, apart
from taking photographs. The
The proceedings under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., with
regard to the death of one namely, Jannu was got conducted
conducted. Furthermore,
17.04.2022, on the basis of the secret information,
information, accused Harpal Singh @
Lillu and Nitesh Kumar @ Nitu (one
one of the present appellants) were arrested,
and during the investigation, in pursuance of disclosure statement and the
confession, the accused Harpal Singh @ Lillu, disclosed the involvement
nt of
other accused persons, i.e. Sachin Pandit, Sumit Rana, Ajay Panchal, Deepak,
Daman, Piyush, Vicky Sodhi, Shanti,
Shanti, in the said occurrence. Harpal Singh @
Lillu got demarcated the place of occurrence and also
4 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 01-02-2025 10:57:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013265
CRA-S-1770–2024 (O&M) 5
CRA-S-1209–2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-1487–2024 and
CRA-S-2970–2024
got recovered the vehicle, make Scorpio, bearing Registration No.HR
No.HR-05AZ
05AZ-
4530, iron pipe/rod,
pipe/rod used in the commission of instant offence. Further, the
t
accused Nitesh Kumar @ Nitu got recovered his clothes
clothes, as worn by him at
the time of occurrence, mobile and wooden danda/binda, used in the
commission of offence,
offence, were also got recovered
recovered.
4. In a similar way, co-petitioner
petitioner Daman Arora also got recovered
Swift Car, bearing Registration No.HR-51AW
No.HR 51AW-1597,
1597, used in the commission
of the instant offence. He has also disclosed
sed about other accused persons,, who
were involved in the commission of instant crime. The co-petitioner Parvinder
Malik @ Dabbu, was
w arrested on dated 01.10.2022
01.10.2022. He has also suffered
disclosure statement and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got
demarcated the place of occurrence.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT(S)
5. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) made joint submissions,, in
order to substantiate
ubstantiate their arguments. The attention of this Court was drawn
towards the contents of the FIR (supra), to submit that
that, neither the appellant(s)
were named in the instant FIR, nor any specific role has been attributed to
them. Furthermore, the gun-shot injury, which was caused to the deceased-
deceased
Jannu, was in fact, attributed to the accused persons
persons-Sachin
Sachin Pandit and Sumit
Rana.. It is further submitted that though there are specific allegations, which
surfaced during the investigation,
investigation to the effect that they also caused injuries to
the deceased with weapons like, danda/binda or iron rods
rods. However,
owever, this
aspect is yet to be proved by the prosecution, by leading cogent evidence
before the learned trial Court concerned. Itt is also submitted that the material
witness namely, Mohit Sharma,
Sharma, who is an injured eye witness, has turned
5 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 01-02-2025 10:57:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013265
CRA-S-1770–2024 (O&M) 6
CRA-S-1209–2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-1487–2024 and
CRA-S-2970–2024
hostile.. Even, the other injured eye witness namely, Anmol, has also turned
hostile, and did not support the case of the prosecution. Though, there is one
more eye witness
w namely, Vinod,, who was examined as PW
PW-8, though, has
supported the case of the prosecution, but no specific injuries have been
attributed to the present appellant(s).
appellant(s) One of tthe star prosecution witness
namely, Rajat Kaushal, has yet not been examined by the prosecution, despite
numerous opportunities were granted to the prosecution. The said witness still
remains unexamined. In fact, he has left the country. Finally, they submit that
the appellant(s)
appellant(s) have already undergone the incarceration of more than two
and half years,
years, and the trial has not reached even the half mark, as on today,
today
therefore,
herefore, the conclusion of the trial would take a long time. This submission
made by the learned counsel for the appellant(s) vociferously opposed by the
learned counsel for the complainant.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED STATE COUNSEL AS WELL AS
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel
counsel,, while making
submissions, has drawn the attention of this Court, towards the specific roles
attributed to the present appellant(s),
appellant(s), which are mentioned in the replies, filed
in the instant appeals,
appeals wherein, all the appellant(s) are allegedly stated to have
ha
caused injuries with their respective weapons
weapons, i.e. danda/binda and iron rods to
the deceased-Jannu,
deceased to submit that all the appellant(s),, have equally
participated in causing the injuries to the deceased, and therefore, they are not
entitled for the relief of regular bail.
7. Learned State counsel on instructions imparted to him from the
quarter concerned, informs this Court, that out of total 54 witnesses, as cited
6 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 01-02-2025 10:57:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013265
CRA-S-1770–2024 (O&M) 7
CRA-S-1209–2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-1487–2024 and
CRA-S-2970–2024
by the prosecution in the final report, 22 prosecution witne
witnesses
sses have been
examined, and 32 witnesses are yet to be examined. He has also placed on
record the custody certificates dated 28.01.2025
28.01.2025, qua all the appellant(s),, in all
the instant appeals,
appeals, today in the Court, which are taken on record.
8. Mr. Namit Khurana,
hurana, Advocate, who has caused appearance on
behalf of the complainant, in all the four appeals, has also opposed the grant of
relief of regular bail to the present appellant(s), and submits that the cause of
death of the deceased-Jannu,
deceased Jannu, as opined by the Doctor concerned, who has
conducted the post-mortem
post report, is ‘due
due to shock and haemorrhage
consequent to described firearm injuries and multiple fractures and their
complications, which are sufficient to cause death’ therefore, the role
attributed to the
the present appellant(s) are equally grievous, with that of the
persons, who has caused the gun-shot
gun shot injuries. He further submits that the
accused Harpal Singh @ Lillu, is a habitual offender
offender,, as he is involved in six
other cases.
ANALYSIS
9. Before embarking upon the process of evaluating the arguments
addressed by the learned counsels for the parties concerned, and penning
down any opinion upon the instant appeals
appeals,, it is deemed imperative to
capture an overview of some significant legal propositions
propositions.
10. “Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception”
Exception”.. This basic principle
of criminal jurisprudence was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, way
back in 1978, in its landmark judgment titled “State of Rajasthan V.
Balchand alias Baliay”, 1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535. This principle
finds its roots in one of the most distinguished fundamental rights, as
7 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 01-02-2025 10:57:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013265CRA-S-1770–2024 (O&M) 8
CRA-S-1209–2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-1487–2024 and
CRA-S-2970–2024enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Though the underlying
objective behind detention of a person is to ensure easy availability of an
accused for trial, without any inconvenience, however, in case the presence
of an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory.
11. The right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained
person. However,
However while deciding application
ication for regular bail, the Courts shall
also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal
jurisprudence, which is “the presumption of innocence”, besides the gravity
of offence(s) involved.
12. In “Gurbaksh
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punj
Punjab”,
ab”, (1980) 2 SCC
565 at 586-588,
586 the purpose of granting bail is set out by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court with great felicity as follows
follows:-
“27.
27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal
with the right to ordinary bail because that right does not
furnish an exact parallel to the right to anticipatory bail. It
is, however, interesting that as long back as in 1924 it was
held by the High
gh Court of Calcutta in Nagendra v. King
Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 (479, 480) that the
object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at
the trial, that the proper test to be applied in the solution
of the question whether bail should be gr
granted
anted or refused
is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take
his trial and that it is indisputable that bail is not to be
withheld as a punishment. In two other cases which,
significantly, are the ‘Meerut Conspiracy cases
observations are to be found regarding the right to bail
which deserve a special mention. In K.N. Joglekar v.
Emperor, AIR 1931 Allahabad 504 (SB) it was observed,
while dealing with Section 498 which corresponds to the8 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 01-02-2025 10:57:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013265CRA-S-1770–2024 (O&M) 9
CRA-S-1209–2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-1487–2024 and
CRA-S-2970–2024present Section 439 of the Code, that it conferred up
upon
on the
Sessions Judge or the High Court wide powers to grant
bail which were not handicapped by the restrictions in the
preceding Section 497 which corresponds to the present
Section 437. It was observed by the Court that there was
no hard and fast rule and
d no inflexible principle governing
the exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 498 and
that the only principle which was established was that the
discretion should be exercised judiciously. In Emperor v.
H.L. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 at p. 358 it was
said that it was very unwise to make an attempt to lay
down any particular rules which bind the High Court,
having regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the
discretion of the Court unfettered. According to the High
Court, the variety
riety of cases that may arise from time to time
cannot be safely classified and it is dangerous to make an
attempt to classify the cases and to say that in particular
classes a bail may be granted but not in other classes. It
was observed that the principl
principlee to be deduced from the
various sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was that
grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. An
accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better
position to look after his case and to properly defend
himselff than if he were in custody. As a presumably
innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and
every opportunity to look after his own case. A presumably
innocent person must have his freedom to enable him to
establish his innocence.
XX XX XX
29. In
n Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1
SCC 118 it was observed by Goswami, J., who spoke for
the Court, that “there cannot be an inexorable formula in
the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of9 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 01-02-2025 10:57:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013265CRA-S-1770–2024 (O&M) 10
CRA-S-1209–2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-1487–2024 and
CRA-S-2970–2024each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in
granting or cancelling bail”.
30. In American Jurisprudence (2d, Vol. 8, page 806, para
39) it is stated :
“Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the
court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large
extent,
t, by the facts and circumstances of each particular
case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of
the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to
the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary
inquiry is whether a recog
recognizance
nizance or bond would effect
that end.”
It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or
not depends for its answer upon a variety of
circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter
into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance
circumstanc
cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily
justifying the grant or refusal of bail.”
13. Also, in “Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others Versus Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh”, 1978 AIR (Supreme Court)
429, the Hon’ble Supreme
Supreme Court, speaking through Krishna Iyer, J., has
enunciated the principles of bail thus :
“9.
9. Thus the legal principle and practice validate the court
considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with
witnesses for the prosecution or otherwis
otherwisee polluting the
process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in
this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who
is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record-
record
particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to
commit
mmit serious offences while on bail. In regard to
habitual, it is part of criminological history that a
thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the
10 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 01-02-2025 10:57:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013265CRA-S-1770–2024 (O&M) 11
CRA-S-1209–2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-1487–2024 and
CRA-S-2970–2024opportunity to inflict further crimes on the member of
society. Bail discretion, on the bas
basis
is of evidence about the
criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise
in irrelevance.
10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the
deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and
permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable,
even-handed
handed and geared to he goals of community good
and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the
considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to
the constitutional proposition I have deduced.
Reasonableness postulates int
intelligent
elligent care and predicates
that deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is not for
punitive purpose but for the bi
bi-focal interests of justice – to
the individual involved and society affected.
11. We must weight the contrary factors to answer the test
the reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the
presence of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume
that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare of
present his case than one rema
remanded
nded in custody. And if
public justice is to be promoted. mechanical detention
should be demoted. In the United States, which has a
constitutional perspective close to ours, the function of
bail is limited, ‘community roots’ of the applicant are
stressed and,
nd, after the Vera Foundation’s Manhattan Bail
Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The
considerable public expense in keeping in custody where
no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is
not a negligible consideration. Equally import
important
ant is the
deplorable condition, verging on the inhuman, of our sub-
sub
jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody
of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail11 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 01-02-2025 10:57:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013265CRA-S-1770–2024 (O&M) 12
CRA-S-1209–2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-1487–2024 and
CRA-S-2970–2024unreasonable and a policy favouring release justly
sensible.
12. A few other weighty
hty factors deserve reference. All
deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and
individual correction along an anti
anti-criminal
criminal direction.
Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law.
Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive hharshness
arshness
should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the
man, even through community service, meditative drill,
study classes or other resources should be innovated, and
playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence,
intimidating witnesses
es or committing offences while on
judicially sanctioned ‘free enterprise’, should be provided
against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks
on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung
around bail orders, not to cripple but to prot
protect.
ect. Such is
the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation
invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values
of our Constitution.
13. Viewed from this perspective, we gain a better insight
into the rules of the game. When a person, charged with a
grave offence, has been acquitted at a stage, has the
intermediate acquittal pertinence to a bail plea when the
appeal before this Court pends? Yes, it has. The panic
which might prompt the accused to jump the gauntlet of
justice is less, having enjoyed
joyed the confidence of the court’s
verdit once. Concurrent holdings of guilt have the opposite
effect. Again, the ground for denial of provisional release
becomes weaker when the fact stares us in the face that a
fair finding if that be so – of innocence has been recorded
by one court. It may not be conclusive, for the judgment of
acquittal may be ex facie wrong, the likelihood of
desperate reprisal, if enlarged, may be a deterrent and his12 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 01-02-2025 10:57:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013265CRA-S-1770–2024 (O&M) 13
CRA-S-1209–2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-1487–2024 and
CRA-S-2970–2024own safety may be more in prison than in the vengeful
village where feuds have provoked the violent offence. It
depends. Antecedents of the man and socio
socio-geographical
geographical
circumstances have a bearing only from this angle. Police
exaggerations of prospective misconduct of the accused, if
enlarged, must be soberly sized up lest danger of excesses
and injustice creep subtly into the discretionary curial
technique. Bad record and policy prediction of criminal
prospects to invalidate the bail plea are admissible in
principle but shall not stampede the court into a
complacent refusal.”
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rabi Prakash Versus The State
of Odisha”, Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169 of 2023, has also
discussed the effect of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
Act, in such like cases of long
custody. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment contained in para
No.4 is reproduced as under:-
under
“4.
4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section
37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent –
State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands
complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of
opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not
be formed at this stage when he hhas
as already spent more
than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged
incarceration, generally militates against the most
precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional
liberty must override the statutory embargo created under
Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.”
13 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 01-02-2025 10:57:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013265
CRA-S-1770–2024 (O&M) 14
CRA-S-1209–2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-1487–2024 and
CRA-S-2970–2024
15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Javed
Javed Gulam Nabi
Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another
another”,, 2024 (3) RCR (Criminal),
494,, it has been specifically held that the right to speedy trial of offenders
facing criminal charges is implicit in the broad sweep and content of A
Article
rticle
21. The relevant extract of the same reads as under:
under:-
“18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human
potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any
criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist
fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents,
juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every
sinner a future. When a cri
crime
me is committed, a variety of
factors is responsible for making the offender commit the
crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be,
the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, the
result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be,
b
because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation
of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with
indigence or other privations.
19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the
court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect
the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial
as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the
State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose
the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is
serious. Article
cle 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective
of the nature of the crime.
20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an
accused; not a convict. The over
over-arching
arching postulate of
criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be
innocent until
il proven guilty cannot be bru
brushed
shed aside
lightly, howsoever
ever stringent the penal law may be.
be.”
14 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 01-02-2025 10:57:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013265
CRA-S-1770–2024 (O&M) 15
CRA-S-1209–2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-1487–2024 and
CRA-S-2970–2024
16. Be that as it may, onn the touchstone of the law, as discussed
above, this
his Court has examined
examined the facts of the instant FIR, and is of the
considered opinion that all the present appellant(s), deserves to be extended
the relief of regular bail,, for the reasons extracted hereinafter ::-
(i) all the appellant(s) were not named in the instant
FIR, nor any specific role has been assigned to them,
them
though there alleged
ged to be co
co-assailants,, who has caused
the injuries to the deceased
deceased;
(ii) all the appellant(s) have undergone the
incarceration of about more than two and half years, as on
today;
(iii) the trial has not reached even the half mark, as on
today, and therefore,
efore, the conclusion of the trial would take
a long time;
(iv) some of the star witnesses have turned hostile;
(v) whether the evidence brought on record by the
prosecution, as on today, is sufficient to bring home the
guilt of the present appellant(s), would be the moot
question of law, to be adjudicated by the learned trial
Court concerned, at appropriate stage;
DECISION
17. However, considering the above facts, long period of
incarceration undergone by the present appellant(s), stage of the trial, and the
role which can be distinguished from the role of the accused Sachin Pandit
and Sumit Rana, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to enlarge all the
present appellant(s) on regular bail.
18. Consequently, all the four instant appeals are allowed. The
appellants-Harpal
Harpal Singh @ Lillu,
Lillu Parvinder Malik @ Dabbu
Dabbu, Nitesh Kumar
@ Nitu and Daman Arora, are ordered to be released on bail
bail, on furnishing of
15 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 01-02-2025 10:57:49 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:013265
CRA-S-1770–2024 (O&M) 16
CRA-S-1209–2024 (O&M)
CRA-S-1487–2024 and
CRA-S-2970–2024
bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial
Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
Magistrate concerned
concerned.
19. However, anything observed herein
hereinabove
above shall have no effect on
the merits of the case and is meant for deciding the instant appeals only.
20. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
21. Photocopy of this order be placed on all the connected case files,
file
as numbered above.
above
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
JUDGE
January 29th, 2025
Manpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
16 of 16
::: Downloaded on – 01-02-2025 10:57:49 :::
