Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Rana @ Kallu vs State Of Haryana on 22 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054118
CRM-M-18180-2024 -1-
2024:PHHC:054118
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
225 CRM-M-18180-2024
Date of Decision :April 22, 2024
RAVINDER RANA @ KALLU .....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Avinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.
KULDEEP TIWARI. J.(Oral)
1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner craves for indulgence of this Court for his being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR No.275, dated 04.11.2023, under Sections 120-B, 307 and 386 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Radaur, Yamunanagar. ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
2. The prosecution agency was set into motion on a complaint made by Arjun Singh. The relevant extract of the FIR reads as under:-
"The contents of the case are like this: To the Incharge, Police Post, Kheri Lakha Singh, P.S. Radaur. Sir, it is submitted that I, Arjun Singh s/o Neter Pal, am resident of village Unheri, P.S. Jathlana, District Yamuna Nagar. Yesterday on 03.11.2023 at about 9:30 PM, I was sitting at my Liquor vend shop situated at Kheri Lakhha Singh after collecting the cash from Juria Naka and suddenly three persons covering with their faces came on motorcycle and shot fire immediately on the Theka with an intention to kill me. I narrow escaped from this incident. These unknown persons covering their faces may kindly be identified and legal action be taken against them. The CCTV footage of the camera will be produced by me. Sd/- Arjun Singh. Applicant Arjun Singh s/o Neter Pal."
1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 01:13:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054118 CRM-M-18180-2024 -2- SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
3. In asking for the relief (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the registration of the instant FIR, one Sandeep Lota, was arrested, and he disclosed that on the fateful day, he alongwith two other persons, namely Navneet and Sikander were riding on a motorcycle, and it was him (Sandeep alias Lota), who opened the fire upon the complainant.
4. He further submits that the present petitioner is alleged to be one of the members of the gang, however, his name is not mentioned in the FIR. However, it is not the case of the prosecution that he was present at the spot at the time of occurrence.
5. He further submits that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of about 2 months, as on today. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
6. Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the asked for relief of grant of regular bail, and also has placed on record a custody certificate qua the petitioner, which is taken on record, and, it reflects that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 1 months and 28 days as on today, and, he is involved in three other criminal case, out of which in only one case he is on bail.
ANALYSIS
7. "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception". This basic 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 01:13:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054118 CRM-M-18180-2024 -3- 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)
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.
8. 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.
9. 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 3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 01:13:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054118 CRM-M-18180-2024 -4- 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 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 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 01:13:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054118 CRM-M-18180-2024 -5- 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.
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 5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 01:13:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054118 CRM-M-18180-2024 -6- 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."
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."
10. 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 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 01:13:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054118 CRM-M-18180-2024 -7- fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty and the sanctity of individual liberty.
11. This Court has examined the instant petition on the touchstone of the hereinabove extracted settled and legal principle(s) of law and is of the considered opinion that the instant petition is amenable for being allowed.
FINAL ORDER
12. Be that as it may be, though the petitioner is stated to be involved in other criminal cases also, but considering the fact that it is a case of no injury, and no overt act is attributed to the present petitioner, and the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 1 months and 28 days, as on today, and conclusion of the trial will take a long time, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 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.
13. 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 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 01:13:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054118 CRM-M-18180-2024 -8- merits of the trial and is meant for deciding the present petition only.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
April 22, 2024 JUDGE
dharamvir
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 01:13:14 :::