Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amritpal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137955
CRM-M-4530-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.227 CRM-M-4530-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 22.10.2024
Amritpal Singh ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. TVS Lehal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, AAG, Punjab.
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.122 dated 12.11.2023, under Sections 341, 379-B & 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the FIR are that on 11.11.2023 at about 4.15 p.m., the accused-petitioner and his companions snatched scooter from the complainant-Kanwaldeep Kaur by pointing a pistol on her head. Name of the petitioner was nominated on the basis of supplementary statement suffered by the complainant on 13.11.2023. The accused- petitioner was arrested on 14.11.2023 and he was identified by the complainant.
1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 27-10-2024 19:45:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137955 CRM-M-4530-2024 (O&M) 2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the present FIR and he has been nominated as an accused on the basis of supplementary disclosure statement of the co-accused-Roshan Lal. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 11 months and 03 days and is involved in 02 other criminal cases.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. He has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 11 months and 03 days and is involved in 02 other criminal cases. He on instructions from the concerned investigating officer submits that challan was presented in Court on 05.01.2024 and out of a total of 15 prosecution witnesses, till date, no prosecution witness has been examined. In view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. Admittedly, challan was presented on 05.01.2024 and none of the prosecution witness has been examined till date. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 11 months and 03 days and is involved in 02 other criminal cases.
7. It would be unjust to keep him behind bars looking at the condition of the jails which are not conducive for rehabilitation process and 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 27-10-2024 19:45:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137955 CRM-M-4530-2024 (O&M) 3 detaining the accused persons in jails would also tantamounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and is against the principle "Bail is a rule, jail is an exception" as elucidated in the judgment of Apex Court in "Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22".
8. As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in another case. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
9. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. The Apex Court in "Abdul Rehman Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and another", 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 634 observed that Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 27-10-2024 19:45:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137955 CRM-M-4530-2024 (O&M) 4 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial.
10. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner shall be established during the course of the trial. The conclusion of the trial will take a considerable time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of the petitioner will not serve any purpose.
11. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-
(I) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(II) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(III) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (IV) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected.
(V) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 27-10-2024 19:45:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137955 CRM-M-4530-2024 (O&M) 5
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
13. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
22.10.2024
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 27-10-2024 19:45:02 :::