Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 14 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160820
CRM-M-61328-2023 -1-
2023:PHHC:160820
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
216 CRM-M-61328-2023
Date of Decision : December 14, 2023
NARESH KUMAR
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhupender Singh, 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.235, dated 31.08.2023, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 452,
506 and 34 of IPC, 1860, (with Section 326 IPC added later on)
registered at P.S. Narwana Sadar, District Jind.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
2. The allegations against the petitioner as levelled in the FIR
are that petitioner has friendship with Mandan @ Dala, who used to visit
his house. On 29.08.2023 at about 8.30 P.M. Madan @ Dala came to his
house and started talking with him. After that they went in the Garhi (the
place where the cattles are tied) and sat there. At about 8.40/9.00 P.M.
one black colour camper and two motorcycles came in front of their
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160820
Garhi. On one motorcycle Ashok Malik son of Mahender and on other
motorcycle Naresh Chahal and Amit @ Mittu on the pillion were sitting.
In the vehicle Azad Chahal and 3-4 more persons alongwith him came
there. They were having gandasas in their hands. They at once attacked
on the complainant. Madan @ Dala caught hold of, the complainant from
back side and all of them brought him out of Garhi at chotra (platform in
front of house) while pulling him. There all of them gave him gandasa
blow which hit on his right arm on his feet and in his back. Thereafter,
Naresh Chahal and Madan @ Dala gave gandas blow on his neck with an
intention to kill him. He sustained injuries on his neck. The complainant
raised an alarm and he fell down on the earth. On hearing the noise one
Mannu, Deepak, Sandeep and some other persons from the nearby
locality came there. On seeing them coming and considering the
complainant as dead accused ran away on their vehicles from the spot.
Due to hurry, one motorcycle No. HR-32F-6529 Splendor of black colour
and one mobile phone Red-MI left at the spot. From there, Manju,
Deepak and Gurmit took him at Government Hospital, Tohana from
where he was referred to MAMC Agroha. The reason behind the dispute
is that, about two years ago, there was a dispute between the complainant
and Amit Chahal, and to take revenge of the same, he and all other
accused attacked on the victim. Action may be taken against them.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the injury
which is attributed to the present petitioner as per the FIR, is the injury
No.1 whereas, as per disclosure statement injury No.6 and 9 are also
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160820
attributed to the petitioner, as mentioned in the MLR as appended in
Annexure P-1.
4. He further submits that the grievous injuries suffered by the
victim are not attributed to the present petitioner, though he is behind
bars simply for the reason that he had given the gandasa blow on the
neck of the present petitioner. He further submits that there is no offence
under Section 307 IPC, is added in the FIR. The injury suffered on the
neck is also found to be simple in nature. He further placed reliance upon
the orders dated 09.11.2023, 21.11.2023 and 29.11.2023, Annexures P-7
to P-9, respectively, vide which the co-accused have already been granted
the benefit of regular bail.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is
behind bars since 25.09.2023, and has faced sufficient incarceration. He
further submits that he cannot be put behind bars for indefinite period
until his guilt is proved.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions
imparted to him by SI Suresh, opposes the grant of regular bail to the
petitioner and has placed on record the custody certificate pertaining to
the present petitioner. On perusal of the custody certificate reveals that
the petitioner has suffered incarceration of about 2 months and 14 days as
on date, and he is facing trial in three more cases.
7. Faced with the above difficulty, learned counsel for the
petitioner informs this Court that, out of three cases as mentioned in the
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160820
custody certificate, in two cases he has earned acquittal, whereas in one
case he is already on bail.
8. It is informed by the learned State counsel that the final
report has been filed way back on dated 03.11.2023, and thereupon,
learned trial Court concerned has framed charges on dated 29.11.2023,
and out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far.
ANALYSIS
9. "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)
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.
10. 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.
11. In "Nikesh Tarachand Shah V. Union of India", (2018) 11
SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded the following:-
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160820
"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 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
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160820
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.
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)
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160820
[(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."
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."
12. 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:-
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160820
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.
13. 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
14. Considering the fact that the petitioner has suffered
incarceration of about 2 months and 14 days, and other co-accused have
already been granted the concession of regular bail and the fact that the
trial is at initial stage, this Court deems it 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
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160820
concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
15. 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)
December 14, 2023 JUDGE
dharamvir
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160820
9 of 9
