Paramjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 1295 P&H

CRM-M-43216-2020                                                          -1-


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

266                                       CRM-M-43216-2020
                                          Date of Decision: 20.01.2023

Paramjeet Singh                                                  ...Petitioner

                                     Versus

State of Punjab                                                 ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:-   Mr. Karanjeet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner
            Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Punjab
            ***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner, through instant petition under Section 439

Cr.P.C., is seeking regular bail in FIR No.242 dated 09.07.2020 under

Sections 307 & 34 of IPC (offence under Section 302 IPC incorporated

vide order dated 26.11.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,

Fazilka), registered at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Fazilka.

2. Mr. Karanjeet Singh Brar, Advocate appeared on behalf of

the petitioner and filed his Vakalatnama with no objection from earlier

counsel. The same is taken on record and Registry is directed to tag at

appropriate place.

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

petitioner was having warm relations with his wife. The police initially

registered FIR under Section 307 & 34 IPC and later on Section 302 was

inserted whereas challan came to be presented under Section 306 IPC.

The police in its investigation has found that it was deceased who had

1 of 5

bought oil which was used in the commission of alleged crime. It was

petitioner who had got admitted the deceased in hospital and thereafter,

followed her treatment. The petitioner is in custody since 17.08.2020.

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

having two minor children and there is nobody to look after them. The

petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the commission of alleged

offence. The petitioner is permanent resident of District Fazilka. The

petitioner has deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of flee

from justice.

4. Custody certificate dated 25.04.2022 is already on record,

which shows that petitioner is in custody since 18.08.2020 and petitioner

is not involved in any other offence.

5. Learned State Counsel submits that challan stands filed,

however, charges are yet to be framed. He further submits that there are

total 22 witnesses. The petitioner is involved in the commission of grave

offence, thus, no leniency is warranted and release of petitioner would

hamper the trial.

6. 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:

"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

2 of 5

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."

7. 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.

8. 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

3 of 5

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

from his fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by article 21

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

9. Keeping in mind:

i) The Petitioner is in custody since 17.08.2020;

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

however till date charges are not framed;

iii) There are 22 prosecution witnesses, thus, there is

abysmally low possibility of conclusion of trial in near

future;

iv) 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;

v) Twin stringent conditions of bail prescribed under

special statutes like PMLA, UAPA, NDPS Act,

Companies Act are not applicable in the case in hand;

vi) The Petitioner is not involved in any other criminal

case;

4 of 5

vii) The Petitioner is permanent resident of District

Fazilka;

viii) 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;

ix) The petitioner is in custody since 17.08.2020 and till

date even charges are not framed and petitioner cannot

be kept in custody for indefinite period.

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