[ad_1]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yodha Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051955
CRM-M-19896-2025 -1-
239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-19896-2025
DECIDED ON: 23.04.2025
YODHA SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: None.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association and Bar Council
of Punjab & Haryana High Court have decided “No work day” for today i.e.,
23.04.2025 on account of sudden demise of Sh. Bhupinder Singh Rathore, oldest
member of the Bar Council.
2. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, has been
invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 76, dated
05.07.2024, under Sections 341, 324, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860 (Sections 326 of IPC
(118(2) of BNS and Section 201 of IPC (238 of BNS) added later on registered at
Police Station Majitha, Amritsar.
2. Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
“Statement of Kanwaljit Singh son of Gursewak Singh resident of
village Ludhar, P.S. Majitha, District Amritsar age 25 years mobile
No. 86694-03415 states that I am resident of above said address. I1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 24-04-2025 05:40:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051955CRM-M-19896-2025 -2-
was doing the work of welding. On 22.06.2024 at 10.30 AM I was
coming back home after doing the work of Satnam Singh @ Sattu of
our village when I reached near the water tank of village Ludhar then
there Harman son of Laddu armed with datar, Goni son of Laddu
armed with datar, Vishal Sharma armed with Kirpan, Jodha son of
Flancha armed with datar and Laddu son of Balwant Singh armed
with datar all residents of village Ludhar, P.S. Majitha were already
standing with their weapons. When I reached near than all the above
said persons surrounded me and Harman gave a lalkara to catch
hold. Today I should not go unhurt teach him (me) a lesson for
quarreling with us on which all of them attacked with their respective
weapons upon me. Goni above said gave blow of datar with intention
to kill me on my head I raised both my hands on my head, so the datar
hit on my left wrist. Harman above said gave a blow of his datar with
intention to kill me on my head and I raised my hands above my head
and the datar hit on the little finger of the right hand. Jodha Singh
above said gave two blows of datar on my right leg and blow the
knee. Vishal Singh above said gave a blow of Kirpan twice on my
right knee, Laddu above said gave a blow of his datar on the left
knee, Vishal gave the blow of the dasti Kirpan below my left knee,
Harman gave a blow of his datar on my right foot on the upper part.
Harman gave the blow of datar below the right knee. Jodha gave two
blows continuously on below my right knee. Goni gave the blow of the
datar on the back side of my right hand. I raised rola of Mar Ditta
Mar Ditta then on hearing my rola Teja Singh son of Narender Singh
and Maggu son of Major Singh resident of Ludhar came on the spot
on seeing them, all the persons fled with their respective weapons.
The motive is that all the above said persons had earlier also quarrel
with me regarding which I had given an application at Majitha Police
Station. Regarding which the respectables had got the matter
compromise with respect to the above said grudge all the above said
persons has given me injuries with intention to kill me. Action be
taken against them. The respectables have been trying for effecting a2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 24-04-2025 05:40:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051955CRM-M-19896-2025 -3-
compromise between us it could not materialized. I have recorded my
statement. Heard it. It is correct Sd/ – Kanwaljit Singh.”
4. It is pleaded in the petition that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case and there is unexplained delay of 12 days in lodging
the FIR, as the incident took place on 22.06.2024 and the FIR was got registered
on 05.07.2024. Perusal of the petition shows that though the injury attributed to
the petitioner has been declared grievous in nature, but the same is on the non-vital
part of the body i.e., below the right knee of the complainant. It has also been
pleaded in the petition that similarly situated co-accused namely Harman Singh
has already been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated
24.01.2025 passed in CRM-M-3219-2025.
5. As per custody certificate produced in the Court by the Pervi Officer,
the petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of 8 months and 13 days and
is having clean antecedents.
6. Be that as it may, considering the facts that the petitioner has already
suffered incarceration of 8 months and 13 days; similarly situated co-accused has
already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court; the injury
attributed to the present petitioner is on the non-vital part of body of the
complainant added with the fact that investigation is completed, wherein
prosecution has cited as many as 21 prosecution witnesses and charges are yet to
be framed, which is sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial shall
take considerable time and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that
detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no
purpose.
7. 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)
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 24-04-2025 05:40:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051955
CRM-M-19896-2025 -4-
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 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
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 24-04-2025 05:40:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051955
CRM-M-19896-2025 -5-
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 discretion is
unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 24-04-2025 05:40:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:051955
CRM-M-19896-2025 -6-
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.”
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
11. The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
12. The Jail Authority, concerned is directed to intimate the said order to the
petitioner-accused.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
23.04.2025 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2025 05:40:37 :::
[ad_2]
Source link