Mukesh vs State Of Haryana
2023 Latest Caselaw 22359 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mukesh vs State Of Haryana on 20 December, 2023

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163679




CRM-M-28901-2023                          -1-


                                     2023:PHHC:163679
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

112                                                     CRM-M-28901-2023
                                        Date of Decision : December 20, 2023

MUKESH                                                       .....Petitioner

                                   VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA
                                                                .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present :   Mr. Saurabh Dalal, 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. 317 dated 27.08.2020, under Sections 302, 201, 364, 120-B and

34 of IPC, registered at Police Station IMT, Rohtak.

SUBMISSIONS         OF      LEARNED             COUNSEL          FOR        THE
PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of

circumstantial evidence, and there is no strong circumstantial evidence

which can connect the present petitioner with the commission of the

alleged crime. He further submits that the only allegation against the

present petitioner is the disclosure statement. He further placed reliance

upon the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in "Navdeep

vs. State of Haryana" (CRM-M-20306-2023, decided on 16.05.2023),

1 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163679

whereby three other co-accused have been extended the benefit of regular

bail and petitioner is on parity with the co-accused, who have been

extended the benefit of regular bail.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL

3. Per contra, the learned State counsel submits that petitioner

is not on parity, as he is the person who strangulated the deceased with

the cable wire.

It is further informed by learned State counsel that, out of

total 40 prosecution witnesses, cited by the prosecution, only 10

witnesses have been examined so far, and the next date for recording

prosecution evidence as fixed by learned trial Court concerned is on

dated 31.04.2024.

To controvert the arguments as made by learned State

counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wire which

was used in the commission of crime was recovered from the neck of the

deceased. Therefore, there is no connecting evidence to connect the

petitioner with alleged crime.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

petitioner is behind the bars since 31.08.2020, and has suffered sufficient

incarceration.

He further submits that most of the material witnesses have

turned hostile during the trial.

2 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163679

ANALYSIS

4. "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.

5. 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.

6. 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

3 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163679

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 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

4 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163679

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) [(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.

5 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163679

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."

7. 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

6 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163679

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.

8. 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

9. Considering the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars

since 31.08.2020, co-accused has already been extended the benefit of

regular bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court, vide order dated

16.05.2023 passed in CRM-M-20306-2023, the conclusion of trial will

take a long time, as out of total 40 prosecution witnesses, only 10 have

been examined so far, and the petitioner not being involved in any other

criminal case, this Court deems it 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.

10. However, it is clarified that if in future, the petitioner is

7 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163679

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 20, 2023                               JUDGE
dharamvir


             Whether speaking/reasoned.        :     Yes/No
             Whether Reportable.               :     Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163679

8 of 8