Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramandeep Singh Alias Sherry vs State Of Punjab on 23 January, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-1754-2025
Date of Decision: January 23, 2025
RAMANDEEP SINGH ALIAS SHERRY ....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.(ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
This petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023
seeking the concession of regular bail for the petitioner in FIR No.53
dated 08.06.2024, under Sections 379-B/341/506 IPC, 1860, registered at
Police Station Badhni Kalan, District Moga.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR reads as under :-
‘Statement of Jangir Singh S/o Budh Singh S/o Ratan
Singh R/o Takhtupura District Moga aged about 60 Mob. No.
98146-51693 stated that I am resident of Village Takhtupura. I
am doing business of selling vegetables in different villages. On
dated 03.06.2024, I and my son Jaswant Singh on our tempo No.
PB-10-BZ-1738, from our Village Takhtupura went for selling
onions at around 05:00 in the morning we reached at Dharam
Kanda before Badhani Kalan then suddenly one Alto Car topped
ahead of us and stopped us. The Car was driven by Sikh man
and on the back side one hindu boy was sitting who suddenly get
SANGEETA out from the car and come towards us and out of them from side
2025.01.23 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1754-2025 2two young men come towards us and the young man get down
from the car removed silver color pistol from his custody and
said to given us whatever you have otherwise he will shoot us.
The young men come from side stand near by our both doors
who told us to give them all the money otherwise they will shoot
us. Then person possessing pistol put his pistol on my forehead
and I being afraid gave them Rs. 7300/- from my pocket to the
person having pistol. They after sitting in their car while
threatening us fled towards Barnala side but turning. My son
read the Tattoo made on the arm of the Sikh person driving the
car. There is a tattoo of Khanda on the left biceps of this young
men. One young men was having wound sign on the right bicep.
My son read the number of the vehicle PB-10-FB-4851. Then we
being afraid returned to our village Takhtupura and stated about
the incident to Hardeep Singh S/o Amar Singh R/o Takhtupura to
whom we took and started searching the accused on our own. We
came to now from the description of accused and vehicle number
that the driver of the car Sikh person Sukhwinder Singh alias
Sukha S/o Kehar Singh R/o Killi Chahal on whose left arm tattoo
namely Aman name has been inscribed and the person sitting on
backside of the car Sanwinder Singh alias Sunny S/o Gurcharan
Singh R/o Kachaa Dosanjh Road Moga who had wound mark on
the biceps. Ramandeep Singh alias Sharry S/o Gurmel Singh R/o
Pakka Dosanjh Road Moga on whose left shoulder there is a
tattoo of Khanda and Gulab S/o Lallu Ram R/o Kacha Dosanjah
Road Moga on whose right arm, Gulab was written in English
and vehicle No. PB-10-FB-4851 was of grey color. These people
after stopping us and our vehicle tempo while threatening us for
life took away Rs. 7300/- from us. Today I along with my son
Jaswant Singh was coming to you for informing at Police
Station. You met us near Balvir Palace Badhani Kalan. Action be
taken against accused. Statement has been got recorded to you,
heard. LTI/- Jangir Singh above Verified Statement Sd/- Jaswant
Singh S/o Jangir Singh R/o Takhtupura Verified Sd/- Pritam
Singh ASI Police Station Badhani Kalan Dated 08.06.2024.
SANGEETA
2025.01.23 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1754-2025 3
Police Action: Today I SI along with SI Jagdev Singh 620/Moga,
Sr. Constable Sandeep Singh 496/Moga, Constable Manjinder
Singh 471/Moga in private vehicle for patrolling in search of
bad elements were present at Balvir Palace Badhani Kalan then
Jangir Singh S/o Budh Singh S/ Ratan Singh R/o Takhtupura
District Moga along with his son Jaswant Singh came to me and
got recorded their statement. Statement has been readover to
them after recording who admitted his statement as correct and
append his left thumb impression. The Same was verified by
Jaswant Singh. Statement was verified by me ASI. From the
statement an offence u/s 379-B, 341, 506 IPC 25-54-59 A Act
has been found to be committed. Upon the recording of the
statement, for registration of the case, sent Constable Manjinder
Singh 471/Moga to Police Station. After registration of the case,
case number be intimated. Special reports be issued. PCR Moga
be intimated. I ASI along with colleagues along with
complainant of the case departed towards the spot of incident.
Sd/- Pritam Singh ASI Police Station Badhani Kalan Dated
08.06.2024 today at jurisdiction near Balvir Palace Badhani
Kalan AT 6:10 PM today at Police Station upon receipt of the
above statement, above case under above offence registered
CCTNS against above accused. Original Statement along with
copy of FIR by hand CT for investigation sent to the spot. After
issuing special reports by hand SCT Manjinder Singh
1377/Moga, sent to service of Duty Magistrate and Officers.
PCR Moga is being intimated. Bandi Report No. 37 dated
08.06.2024 at 7:15 PM.’
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits
that there is an explained delay of 5 days in lodging the instant FIR, as
SANGEETA
2025.01.23 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1754-2025 4
the incident took place on 03.06.2024 and FIR got registered on
08.06.2024 for which no proper justification is coming forth. He
further submits that co-accused namely Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha has
already been granted the concession of regular bail.
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 07 months 09 days.
He prays for dismissal of the present petition stating that the
petitioner is a habitual offender, as he is involved in other cases.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the fact that there is an
unexplained delay of 05 days in lodging the instant FIR and the Hon’ble
Apex Court in ‘Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1973 AIR 501, 1972
SCR(3) 622′ has emphasized the significance of filing a timely FIR in
case involving Cognizable offences. In a criminal case the first
information report is a crucial and priceless evidence piece of validating
the oral testimony provided at trial, added with the fact that petitioner has
already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 07 months 09 days similarly
situated co-accused has already been granted concession of bail by this
Court, 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 05.06.2024
and charges stands framed on 16.07.2024, out of 12 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
SANGEETA
2025.01.23 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1754-2025 5
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 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
SANGEETA investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused
2025.01.23 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1754-2025 6person 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 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
SANGEETA
2025.01.23 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1754-2025 7Emperor 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 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.
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
SANGEETA
2025.01.23 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1754-2025 8
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 land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the
concession of bail.
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
23.01.2025
Sangeeta
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
SANGEETA
2025.01.23 18:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link