The Punjab and Haryana High Court in a petition seeking bail in a case registered under Sections 306 and 120-B of the IPC observed that given the nature of allegations against the petitioners, role attributed viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage
Brief Facts:
The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner, who has been in custody for more than 2 months under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail in the case registered against them under Sections 306 and 120-B of the IPC.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prayed for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contended that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and families.
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that as per the custody certificates, the petitioner have been in custody for last 2 months and 21 days and given the nature of allegations against the petitioners, role attributed viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order and thus the previous criminal history of the petitioner is not being considered strictly at this stage as a factor for denying bail.
Further, the court referred to the decision in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, wherein it was held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail and further the decision of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, wherein it was held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations.
Further the court stated that the possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice could be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions and stated that petitioners can be granted bail, subject to imposed terms and conditions and directed the petitioner to surrender all weapons, firearms, ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority and further directed the petitioner to not enter the property, workplace, and the residence of the victim and shall also not enter within a radius of five-hundred meters from the victim’s home till the recording of the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial.
The decision of the Court:
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to the direction that the petitioner repeat or commit any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condition as stipulated in this order, it shall always be permissible for the respondent to apply for cancellation of this bail.
Case Title: Kirat Singh alias Harkirat Singh vs. State of Punjab
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara
Case No.: CRM-M-27127-2024
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Ranjodh Singh Sidhu, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Sukhdev Singh, AAG, Punjab and Mr. Rishab Bhandari, Advocate for the complainant
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
