Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mursualin @ Bhuru vs State Of Haryana on 2 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046730
107+215 2024:PHHC:046730
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-12134-2024 in/and
CRM-M-63471-2023
Date of Decision : April 02, 2024
MURSUALIN @ BHURU .....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate,
for the applicant/petitioner.
Mr.Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.
KULDEEP TIWARI. J.(Oral)
CRM-12134-2024
1. The application is allowed as prayed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRM-M-63471-2023
2. Through the instant petition, the petitioner craves for indulgence of this Court for his being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR No.271, dated 21.08.2023, under Sections 186,332,353,307, 379,411,483,420 of the IPC, and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Asaudha, Jhajjar.
3. The prosecution agency was set into motion on a secret information, wherein, it was informed that Ashif, Sehadab, Mursualin alias Bhuru and Gurfaan, were involved in the act of stealing animals from the villages, and they also used to keep illegal weapon. In case raid is conducted, they can be apprehended red handed. Accordingly, raid was conducted by the police party and naka was also laid to nab the accused.
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2024 09:50:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046730
CRM-M-63471-2023(O&M) -2-
However, in order to avoid the arrest, the driver of the vehicle (canter), ran away from the spot, and not only that one of the accused opened fire upon the raiding team, which hit on the police vehicle. It is also transpired from the perusal of the FIR (supra) that the police had to respond with fire shots in order to arrest the present petitioner and other co-accused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was apprehended on the spot, however, he was empty handed, and the pistol which as per the allegations used in the crime, was recovered from one of the co-accused namely-Ashif, who was also arrested alongwith present petitioner.
5. He further submits that though the petitioner is involved in 13 other criminal cases, however, in all these cases, he was involved after his arrest in the present case.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vociferously opposed the asked for relief, and submits that petitioner and co-accused had an audacity to open fire upon the police persons, which fortunately hit the police vehicle, otherwise, they had intention to kill the police officials, who were performing their official duty.
7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for both the parties concerned, and has gone through the entire case file.
8. "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception". This basic principle of criminal jurisprudence was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, way back in 1978, in its landmark judgment titled "State of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias Baliay", 1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2024 09:50:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046730 CRM-M-63471-2023(O&M) -3-
535. This principle finds its roots in one of the most distinguished fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Though the underlying objective behind detention of a person is to ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory.
9. The right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person. However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, which is "the presumption of innocence", besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.
10. In "Nikesh Tarachand Shah V. Union of India", (2018) 11 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded the following:-
"14. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 at 586-588, the purpose of granting bail is set out with great felicity as follows:-
"27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal with the right to ordinary bail because that right does not furnish an exact parallel to the right to anticipatory bail. It is, however, interesting that as long back as in 1924 it was held by the High Court of Calcutta in Nagendra v. King-Emperor the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, that the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial and that it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. In two other cases which,significantly, are 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2024 09:50:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046730 CRM-M-63471-2023(O&M) -4- the 'Meerut Conspiracy cases' observations are to be found regarding the right to bail which deserve a special mention. In K.N. Joglekar v. Emperor [AIR 1931 All 504: 33 Cri LJ 94] it was observed, while dealing with Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code, that it conferred upon the Sessions Judge or the High Court wide powers to grant bail which were not handicapped by the restrictions in the preceding Section 497 which corresponds to the present Section 437. It was observed by the court that there was no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 498 and that the only principle which was established was that the discretion should be exercised judiciously. In Emperor v. Hutchinson [AIR 1931 All 356, 358 : 32 Cri LJ 1271] it was said that it was very unwise to make an attempt to lay down any particular rules which will bind the High Court, having regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the discretion of the court unfettered. According to the High Court, the variety of cases that may arise from time to time cannot be safely classified and it is dangerous to make an attempt to classify the cases and to say that in particular classes a bail may be granted but not in other classes. It was observed that the principle to be deduced from the various sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody. As a presumably innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case. A presumably innocent person must have his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence.
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2024 09:50:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046730
CRM-M-63471-2023(O&M) -5-
28. Coming nearer home, it was observed by Krishna Iyer, J., in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 115] that: (SCC p. 242, para 1) "... the issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process. . . . After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of procedure established by law. The last four words of Article 21 are the life of that human right."
29. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) [(1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] it was observed by Goswami, J., who spoke for the court, that: (SCC p. 129, para 29) "There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail."
30. In AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE (2d, Volume 8, p. 806, para 39), it is stated:
"Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end."
5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2024 09:50:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046730 CRM-M-63471-2023(O&M) -6- It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail."
11. Also, in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has insisted upon striking a perfect balance of sanctity of an individual's liberty as well as the interest of the society, in grant or refusing bail. The relevant extract of the judgment (supra) is reproduced hereinafter:-
3. The society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail because every criminal offence is the offence against the State. The order granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect balance between the conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and the interest of the society. The law of bails dovetails two conflicting interests namely, on the one hand, the requirements of shielding the society from the hazards of those committing crimes and potentiality of repeating the same crime while on bail and on the other hand absolute adherence of the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty and the sanctity of individual liberty.
12. This Court has examined the instant petition on the touchstone of the hereinabove extracted settled and legal principle(s) of 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2024 09:50:32 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046730 CRM-M-63471-2023(O&M) -7- law and is of the considered opinion that the instant petition is amenable for being allowed.
13. Be that as it may be, considering the fact that the petitioner was apprehended from the spot of occurrence, but empty handed, and there is no allegation against the petitioner that the opened fire upon the police officials, and further the petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 6 months, as on today, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits and circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
14. However, it is clarified that if in future, the petitioner is found indulging in commission of similar offences, as are involved herein, the respondent-State shall be at liberty to make an appropriate application seeking cancellation of regular bail, as granted by this Court. Moreover, anything observed here-in-above shall have no effect on the merits of the trial and is meant for deciding the present petition only.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
April 02, 2024 JUDGE
dharamvir
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2024 09:50:32 :::