Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahil vs State Of Punjab on 1 April, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043423
CRM-M-16348-2025 -1-
224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-16348-2025
DECIDED ON: 01.04.2025
SAHIL .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Sushant Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Gautam Thapar, AAG Punjab
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, has been
invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 220, dated
19.08.2023, under Sections 302, 34, 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Sections 25, 27,
29 of Arms Act and Sections 21, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 added later on,
registered at Police Station Jandiala, Amritsar.
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
“Statement of Manni wife of Ramsharan resident of Near Ashu
Club Gaushala Road, Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar age about
35 years, 6280451391 that I am the resident of the above said
address and do the domestic work. I have five children from them
four are boys and one is girl. Girl is about 3 years old. My
husband Ramsharan is a labouror, who today went to the house of
his brother Satpal Singh alongwith his younger daughter in his
car bearing no. HR 02 P 2842 make Zen Color Gray in ward no.
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 02-04-2025 03:10:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043423CRM-M-16348-2025 -2-
7. When my husband today at time about 12 AM came back at the
door of his house in his car then my daughter was with him then
after hearing the noise of the horn, I opened the door of my house
then while seeing by me, four unknown persons on two
motorcycles from them two were holding the pistols and by
coming started to shoot my husband Ramsharan Singh while
sitting in the car. After crossing the bullets from the front glass
and side hit approximately 5-6 bullets to my husband. My
husband already make my daughter sit towards foot. I raised
voice in loud manner maar ditta maar ditta then the above said
unknown persons alongwith their weapons fled away from the
spot on their motorcycles. Reason behind the grudge is that my
husband had fallen in the bad company and due to that he had
relations with bad kind of persons from them today somebody
have fired the shots upon my husband. We were taking my
husband Ramsharan to the hospital for treatment. Who has died
on the way. Whose dead body is lying in Guru Ramdass Hospital,
Vallah. I by leaving my son Gagandeep Singh near the dead body
was coming alongwith my elder brother in law Satpal Singh to
give the information to you but you have met near the gate of the
hospital. By searching the unknown persons. Appropriate legal
action may be taken. Statement has been got recorded to you,
heard, it is correct. RTI Manni.”
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that neither the petitioner was named in the FIR nor it has come in
the investigation that he was present at the alleged place of occurrence.
Moreover, the petitioner was not armed with any kind of weapon and he has
been arrayed as an accused on the basis of alleged secret information and
except conducting recci, there is no other incriminating evidence against him
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 02-04-2025 03:10:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043423CRM-M-16348-2025 -3-
in order to connect him with the alleged crime. Apart from that he is seeking
regular bail on the ground that PW-1 Mahni-complainant has turned hostile, as
is evident from her deposition dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P-3). The attention
of this Court has been drawn to the orders dated 09.01.2025 & 11.02.2025
(Annexuers P-5 & P-6 respectively) passed in CRM-M-64278-2024 & CRM-
M-6818-2025.
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 has suffered incarceration of 1 year, 2 months and 8 days.
Learned State Counsel prays for dismissal of the present petition
stating that the allegations against the petitioner is of serious in nature,
wherein his involvement is chain of supply of weapons, arms and ammunition
to the various gangsters added with the fact that he is involved in various other
cases, meaning thereby, he is habitual offender.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be culled out
that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration of 1 year, 2
months and 8 days and after framing of charges on 06.09.2024, out of total 26
prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far, which is sufficient for
this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial shall take considerable time
added with the fact that PW-1/complainant has turned hostile, hence there is
every probability of the petitioner of earning acquittal, and as per the principle
of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 02-04-2025 03:10:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043423
CRM-M-16348-2025 -4-
is proved beyond reasonable doubt, 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 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
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 02-04-2025 03:10:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043423
CRM-M-16348-2025 -5-
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 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
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 02-04-2025 03:10:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043423
CRM-M-16348-2025 -6-
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 “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 contention of learned State counsel with regard to
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
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
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 02-04-2025 03:10:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043423
CRM-M-16348-2025 -7-
pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would lend the
petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail.
5. Relief:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby directed to be released on regular bail on 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)
01.04.2025 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 02-04-2025 03:10:57 :::
[ad_1]
Source link