[ad_1]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satinder Singh Alias Happy vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056074
CRM-M-21663-2025 -1-
234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-21663-2025
DECIDED ON: 30.04.2025
SATINDER SINGH ALIAS HAPPY
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG Punjab
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer
This Second petition under section 483 of BNSS, for Grant of
Regular Bail to the petitioner in a criminal case arising out of FIR bearing No.
101, dated 22.06.2024, registered under sections 307, 336, 353, 506, 186, 427 IPC,
1860 and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Haibowal, District
Ludhiana.
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
“SHO, Police Station Haibowal, Ludhiana. “Jai Hind” Today myself
ASI along with ASI Jinder Lal No.2103/Ldh, ASI Roshan Lal
No.1231/Ldh, Constable Surinder Singh No.2210/Ldh, Senior
Constable Ravi Kumar No.3285/Ldh, Senior Constable Kashish
No.2235/Ldh, Constable Gurwinder Singh No. 3646/Ldh, Sepoy1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 06:46:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056074CRM-M-21663-2025 -2-
Lovepreet Singh No.3744/Ldh were going on government vehicle
bearing number PB-10-FV-5946, make Ertiga, driven by PHG
Gurnam Singh no.28997, in proper uniform towards Haider Enclave
Colony conducting patrolling and checking of suspicious persons and
when myself ASI along with police party reached below the Jassian
railway line bridge, then on the spot a secret informer came present
and stopped the government vehicle and gave information to myself
ASI separately, that the accused Ravinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh @
Dega, resident of near Dairy of Swaran Singh, Mohalla Basant
Nagar, Partap Singh Wala, Ludhiana in the FIR no. 98, dated
18.06.2024, u/S 307, 160, 427, 148, 149, 506 IPC and u/S 25, 27-54-
59 Amrs Act, PS Haibowal, District Ludhiana who was among the
unknown accused, is standing near a vacant plot from Chuharpur to
Laadiyan Ram Enclave Colony, upon which myself ASI along with
police party reached near the vacant plot from Chucharpur to
Laadiyan Ram Enclave Colony, where 02 persons were standing near
the empty plot. When myself ASI along with fellow officials reached
near the persons, then ASI Roshan Lal identified from both the
persons, the accused Ravinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh @ Dega son
of Gurcharan Singh, resident of House No. 604, near Swaran Singh’s
Dairy, Mohalla Basant Nagar, Pratap Singh Wala, Police Station
PAU, Ludhiana and while identifying said that between the
invervening night of 17/18.06.2024, he was involved in the fight and
vandalism outside Sahil Kanda’s house in Mohalla Chandra Nagar,
street number 03 and your name is Ravinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh
@ Dega son of Gurcharan Singh and after saying this, aforesaid
Ravinder Singh @ Dega and his companion started putting their
hands in their waist, then myself ASI alerted the police party and hide
behind the government vehicle bearing number PB-10-FV-5946,
make Ertiga and accused Ravinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh @ Dega
fired in the dark on the police party, with the intention of kill, which
hit the body of the government vehicle and the second firing shots in
the air were given by the companion of accused Ravinder Singh @
Rajinder Singh @ Dega and both of them pointed their pistols2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 06:46:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056074CRM-M-21663-2025 -3-
towards the police party and threatening to kill, then myself ASI, ASI
Jinder Lal No.2103/Ldh, ASI Roshan Lal No.1231/Ldh, by taking the
advantage of the lights of the government vehicle, started cross firing
for self-defence from our own government pistols and during firing,
one fire shot hit the right leg of Ravinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh @
Dega and one fire hit on the left leg of his companion. Then voice
came that are died, spare us, upon which myself ASI, along with the
help of fellow officials, quickly arrested both the accused and asked
for their names and address, upon which Ravinder Singh @ Rajinder
Singh @ Dega told his name as Ravinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh @
Dega, son of Gurcharan Singh, resident of House No. 04, near
Swaran Singh’s Dairy, Mohalla Basant Nagar, Pratap Singh Wala,
Police Station PAU, Ludhiana and his accomplice told his name as
Satinder Singh @ Happy son Nirmal Singh, resident of Haider
Enclave. That by doing this both the accused, committed an offence
under Sections 307, 336, 353, 506, 186, 427 of IPC and 25, 27, 54, 59
of Arms Act, regarding which ruqa of the above offence was written
against the aforesaid accused Ravinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh @
Dega son of Gurcharan Singh, resident of House Number 04, near
Swaran Singh’s Dairy, Mohalla Basant Nagar, Pratap Singh Wala,
Police Station PAU, Ludhiana and Satinder Singh @ Happy son
Nirmal Singh, resident of Ram Enclave, Ludhiana and was sent to PS
by hand through Constable Gurwinder Singh No.3646/Ldh, for
registration of FIR. FIR be registered and its number be informed,
Control Room be informed, Special report be issued. Myself ASI
along with fellow officials are busy in further investigation. Sd/- ASI
Sukhjinder Singh 391/Ldh, Incharge Police Post, Jagatpuri, Police
Station Haibowal, Ludhiana. Dated 22-6- 2024.”
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case and there is no iota of evidence coming forth
against the petitioner. He further submits that the in the present case investigation
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 06:46:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056074CRM-M-21663-2025 -4-
is complete, challan stands presented and nothing is to be recovered from the
petitioner, who is in custody since 07.07.2024.
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 9 months and 25 days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer
opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the petitioner is a habitual
offender, as he is involved in other cases.
4. Analysis
Considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e., 9
months and 25 days and no incriminating material has been put forth by the
prosecution to connect the petitioner with the alleged commissioning of offence
and no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner added with the fact that
investigation is complete, challan stands presented on 29.08.2024, charges are yet
to be framed and thereafter total 14 prosecution witnesses are to be examined. This
Court is sanguine of the fact that conclusion of trial shall take considerable time,
no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for
uncertain period, wherein “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” and it would
also violate the principle of right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal under
Article 21 of Constitution of India, as has been time and again discussed by this
Court, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Dataram
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. 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 is4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 06:46:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056074CRM-M-21663-2025 -5-
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 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 and5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 06:46:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056074CRM-M-21663-2025 -6-
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
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 06:46:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056074
CRM-M-21663-2025 -7-
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.
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.”
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
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 01-05-2025 06:46:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:056074
CRM-M-21663-2025 -8-
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 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)
30.04.2025 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2025 06:46:17 :::
[ad_2]
Source link