Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranbir Singh Alias Rana Alias Ranvir … vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056166
CRM-M-21898-2025 -1-
246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-21898-2025
DECIDED ON: 30.04.2025
RANBIR SINGH ALIAS RANA ALIAS RANVIR SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate and
Mr. Rajdeep Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Arshdeep Singh Kler, Advocate and
Mr. Ravi Singh, Advocate
for the complainant.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the second
time under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 154
dated 05.08.2023 under Section 302, 307, 341, 323, 506, 148, 149, 120-B
IPC, P.S. Samana (Sadar Samana) District Patiala.
2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in
the FIR as under:-
“Contents: – At this time one copy of Rapat No. 22 dated
04.08.2023 Roznamcha, Post Mavi Kalan, regarding
statement of Mandeep Singh son of Pritam Singh, Village1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 06:45:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056166CRM-M-21898-2025 -2-
Shahpur, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala Police Station Sadar
Patiala aged about 38 years M. No. 86996-36904 to SI
Kuldeep Singh, Inch. Post Mavi Kalan, Police Station Sadar
Samana for registration of case against Randhir Singh son of
Gurnalb Singh, Gurnaib Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, Labh
Singh son of Mohar Singh, Gurdeep Singh son of Labh Singh,
Nirmal Singh son of Maghar Singh, Ranbir Singh @ Rana
son of Gurjant Singh, Jaspreet Singh son of Rana Singh,
residents of Shahpur, Police Sadar Samana, District Patiala
under Station sections 307, 341, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC by
hand PHG Balbir Singh 18210/Ptl. received in the Police
Station. The contents of the same are, “DDR NO.22 dated
04.08.2023, SI Kuldeep Singh Inch. post mavi Kalan, return
L/PHG and recording of statement. Statement Time 7:25 PM.
It is recorded that one statement of Mandeep Singh son of
Pritam Singh, resident of Shahpur, Sadar Samana, District
Patiala aged about 38 years M.No. 86996-36904, “Stated that
I am resident of above mentioned address and doing
agricultural work and some days ago we had made pickle for
animals. At that time Bharouli (Pipe) of canal water was
broken from us and then yesterday time would be 5:00 PM the
persons mentioned below were already standing with some
preparation and started saying to me that you had broken our
Bharouli (Pipe) and then I said that my brother Rajinder
Singh is coming by taking Bharouli (Pipe) and today we will
install the Bharouli (Pipe) then after sometime my brother
Rajinder Singh came while taking Bharouli (Pipe) and when
he was to lift the same from Rickshaw-Rehri then in the
meantime Randhir Singh son of Gurnaib Singh having pistol
in his hand, Gurnaib Singh having Gandasa in his hand, Labh
Singh having dang in hand, Gurdeep Singh son of Labh Singh
having Soti- Fatti (Stick) with nails in hand. Nirmal Singh son
of Maghar Singh having takua in his hand, Rana Son of
Gurjant Singh having dang in his hand, Jasanpreet Singh son
of Rana Singh resident of Shahpur, and then Randhir Singh
holding pistol in hand while pointing straightway raised
lalkara that today both have been met and earlier they had2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 06:45:06 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056166CRM-M-21898-2025 -3-
harassed to our elders and now more to us, should not be
spared, then Gurdeep Singh holding a fatti (Stick) wherein
nails were affixed, hit on the head of my brother Rajinder
Singh, who had fallen on the ground at the spot and thereafter
Nirmal Singh gave takua blow on my head, which hit on my
forehead on reverse and by this time Rana attacked with dang
which hit on my right shoulder then all of them attacked upon
we both brothers blindly with dangs, legs, takua. I raised
Maarta-Maarta and tried to flee, but they beaten us by
encircling us and in the meantime, many people had gathered,
out of which Karam Singh son of Malkeet Singh, Gurdeep
Singh son of Gulzar Singh, Shahpur also came. Then while
seeing the gathering of said persons along with their weapons
fled away from the spot while threatening and in the
meantime, our nephew Paramjit Singh came at the spot and
then after making arrangement of vehicle we were got
admitted in CH Samana, where doctor admitted me and as my
brother Rajinder Singh suffered more injuries, he was referred
to Rajindra Hospital. As the injury was more and now, I came
to know that my brother is admitted in Full Neuro Nabha
Road, Patiala and who is unconscious. I had got recorded my
statement to you in the presence of my nephew. We have been
caused beating with the intention to kill us by rounding us by
Randhir Singh son of Gurnaib Singh, Gurnaib Singh son of
Mukhtiar Singh, Labh Singh son of Mohar Singh, Gurdeep
Singh son of Labh Singh, Nirmal Singh son of Maghar Singh,
Rana Singh son of Gurjant Singh, Jasanpreet Singh son of
Rana Singh, residents of Shahpur village Sadar Samana, we
had danger to our life from them. Action be taken. We have
got recorded our statement to you which is head and correct.”
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has not attributed any injury to the deceased and only gave a stick blow to
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 06:45:06 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056166
CRM-M-21898-2025 -4-
the complainant, which was also declared simple in nature. He further
submits that the petitioner is claiming parity with co-accused Nirmal Singh,
who has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide
order dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed in CRM-M-479-2025. It has
been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is a man of clean
antecedents as he is not involved in any other case.
On behalf of the State/complainant
On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the
custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record.
He along with Mr. Arshdeep Singh Kler, Advocate has put in appearance on
behalf of the complainant, who has filed his Memorandum of Appearance
and seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the allegation
against the petitioner is of causing injury with dang to the complainant
Mandeep Singh, along with other co-accused persons.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the custody period undergone by
the petitioner i.e. 01 year, 08 months and 11 days added with the facts that
the petitioner is claiming parity with co-accused Nirmal Singh, who has
been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order
dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed in CRM-M-479-2025; the injury
attributed to the petitioner is with dang on the shoulder of the complainant
Mandeep Singh, which was declared simple in nature; the petitioner has not
given any injury to the deceased; the petitioner is a man of clean antecedents
as he is not involved in any other case in addition to the fact that
investigation is complete, wherein after framing of charges on 26.03.2025,
out of total 35 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far, which
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 06:45:06 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056166
CRM-M-21898-2025 -5-
is suffice for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial shall take
considerable time, this Court is of the considering view that detaining the
petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would serve 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 best5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 06:45:06 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056166CRM-M-21898-2025 -6-
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 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
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 06:45:06 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056166
CRM-M-21898-2025 -7-
(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 “Balwinder Singh versus
State of Punjab and Another“, SLP (Crl.) No.8523/2024. Relevant paras of
the said judgment reads as under:-
“7. An accused has a right to a fair trial and while a hurried
trial is frowned upon as it may not give sufficient time to
prepare for the defence, an inordinate delay in conclusion of the
trial would infringe the right of an accused guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution.
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 06:45:06 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056166CRM-M-21898-2025 -8-
8. It is not for nothing the Author Oscar Wilde in “The Ballad
of Reading Gaol”, wrote the following poignant lines while
being incarcerated:
“I know not whether Laws be right,
Or whether Laws be wrong;
All that we know who be in jail
Is that the wall is strong;
And that each day is like a year,
A year whose days are long.”
5. RELIEF:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby directed to be released on regular bail on him furnishing bail and
surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/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)
30.04.2025 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2025 06:45:06 :::
[ad_1]
Source link