Jaswinder vs State Of Haryana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1291 P&H

CRM-M-60410-2022                                                          -1-

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

220                                       CRM-M-60410-2022
                                          Date of Decision: 20.01.2023

Jaswinder                                                       ...Petitioner

                                     Versus

State of Haryana                                           ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:-   Mr. Gyan Parkash Saini, Advocate for
            Mr. Lalit Mohan Brar, Advocate for the petitioner
            Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana
            Mr. Rahul Kumar Adia, Advocate for the complainant
            ***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. Compromise dated 18.01.2023 filed by learned counsel for the

petitioner is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at

appropriate place

2. The petitioner, through instant petition under Section 439

Cr.P.C., is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 274 dated 14.05.2022 under

Sections 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station City

Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia contends that the

prosecutrix was 24 years old at the time of alleged incident and she had

admitted that there was relation between the parties for last 08 years. It is a

case of dispute on account of marriage. The allegation of the prosecutrix

herself is that the petitioner had refused to marry her. Now the prosecutrix

has got married on 20.09.2022. The petitioner is in custody since

10.08.2022. The petitioner is not involved in any other offence. The

1 of 5

petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the commission of alleged

offence. The petitioner has deep roots in the society and is ready to join

investigation and face trial. There is no possibility of flee from justice. The

arrest is causing irreparable loss, mental agony, embarrassment and

humiliation to petitioner as well entire family. He further submits that the

parties have entered into a compromise.

4. Mr. Rahul Kumar Adia, Advocate appeared on behalf of

prosecutrix and filed his Power of Attorney. The same is taken on record

and Registry is directed to tag at appropriate place.

5. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix, inter alia submits that

prosecutrix has got married somewhere else and she does not carry any

grouse against the petitioner. She has no objection if petition is allowed and

petitioner is released on bail.

6. Custody Certificate dated 19.01.2023 is taken on record.

Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.

7. Learned State Counsel submits that police report has

already been filed and charges stand framed. She further submits that out of

11 witnesses, none has been examined. The petitioner is involved in the

commission of grave offence, thus, no leniency is warranted and release of

petitioner would hamper the trial.

8. A two judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender

Kumar Antil v. CBI; (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing

conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed:

2 of 5

"6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other."

9. Intent of arrest and reason of denial of bail is to:

i) Secure the appearance of the accused at the time of trial;

ii) allay possibility of repeating of offence & jeopardising

own life on account of grim prospect of being convicted;

and

iii) Avoid possibility of tampering of evidence and security

of witnesses who may be pressurised or maltreated.

10. A person who seeks to be liberated must take judgment and

serve sentence in the event of his conviction. The nature of the crime

charged, severity of punishment prescribed, prime facie available

evidences, history & background of the accused may indicate that any

amount of bond and surety is not going to secure presence of accused, at

the time of conviction. Detention or arrest not only deprives a person from

3 of 5

his fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by article 21 but also

freedom guaranteed by article 19(1) of our Constitution.

11. Keeping in mind:

i) The Petitioner is in custody since 10.08.2022;

ii) Police report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. stands filed,

charges stand framed;

iii) There are 11 prosecution witnesses and till date none has

been examined, thus, there is abysmally low possibility

of conclusion of trial in near future;

iv) The prosecutrix was major at the time of alleged offence

and her grouse was that petitioner had refused to marry

her and now she has got married with another boy. She

has no objection if petitioner is released on bail;

v) As prosecution has right to arrest, investigate the matter

and restrain an accused from manipulating or winning

over witnesses, similarly accused in view of Article 21

of the Constitution of India has right to defend himself

and put forth his stand which cannot be possible while in

custody;

vi) Twin stringent conditions of bail prescribed under

special statutes like PMLA, UAPA, NDPS Act,

Companies Act are not applicable in the case in hand;

vii) The Petitioner is not involved in any other criminal

case;

viii) The Petitioner is permanent resident of District Yamuna

Nagar;

4 of 5

ix) Prosecution has not led any convincing/plausible

documentary or oral evidence indicating possibility of

Petitioner being flee from justice or tempering the

evidences or winning over/threatening the witnesses;

this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition

deserves to allowed and accordingly allowed. The petitioner is ordered to

be released on bail subject to conditions as may be imposed by Trial

Court/Illaqa/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression

of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and Trial Court shall proceed

without being prejudiced by observations of this Court.

                                                      (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
                                                            JUDGE
20.01.2023
Mohit Kumar
              Whether speaking/reasoned              Yes/No
              Whether reportable                     Yes/No




                                     5 of 5