Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manik Babbar vs State Of Punjab on 12 September, 2023
CRM-M-18763-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-18763-2023
Reserved on: 05.09.2023
Pronounced on: 12.09.2023
Manik Babbar ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. J.S. Thakur, Advocate for the pe oner.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta on Sec ons
21 06.02.2019 Navi Baradari, 302, 307, 324, 148, 149, 109,
District Jalandhar 120-B IPC and 25, 27 of Arms
Commissionerate, Act (326, 201 IPC added later
on)
1. The pe oner incarcerated in the FIR cap oned above has come up before this
Court under Sec on 439 CrPC seeking bail.
2. In paragraph 14 of the bail applica on, the accused declares the following criminal
antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offences Police Sta on
1. 99 10.08.2021 307, 34 and 25,27,54, Bhargo Camp,
59 of Arms Act Jalandhar
2. 176 01.07.2022 20, 61, 85 of NDPS Act Kowali, Kapurthala
3. 119 30.06.2017 21, 29, 61 of NDPS Act Kartarpur, Jalandhar
3. The pe oner contends that the pre-trial incarcera on would cause an
irreversible injus ce to the pe oner and family.
4. While opposing bail, the conten ons on behalf of the State are that given the
criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail and trial is at
advance stage.
JYOTI
2023.09.13 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
CRM-M-18763-2023
REASONING:
5. In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022:PHHC:003983 [Para 8], CRM-M 50243
of 2021, this court observed,
While considering each bail pe on of the accused with a criminal
history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act
judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the an thesis
of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was
convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First
Informa on Reports, wherein the bail pe oner stands arraigned as
an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the
prosecu ons resul ng in acqui al or discharge, or when Courts
quashed the FIR; the prosecu on stands withdrawn, or prosecu on
filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be
despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a
playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the
puddles.
6. The pe oner has criminal history of heinous and grave crimes. The pe on does
not refer to any averment based on which this court is assured that if this recidivist is
released on bail, then he shall not indulge in criminal behavior.
7. The allega ons against the pe oner are that he along with his associate
a acked the complainant party on 06.02.2019 and fired gun shots on the complainant's
brother, namely, Davinder Singh, also gave dater blow on his head, due to which he
expired. When the complainant rushed to save his brother even he was fired upon. In
between some of the co-accused also infected datar blows on the complainant.
Although, ini ally the pe oner's name was not men oned, however, a er a gap of just
two days, the complainant named him as Manak Sharma, which is further clarified that
he did not know the surname correctly and it was the pe oner Manik Babbar, who was
Manak Sharma and even datar was a ributed to him. Although, six persons who were
ini ally nominated as an accused were found innocent in the inves ga on and were
absolved but the inves gator found evidence against the pe oner with a specific role
that he had inflicted a datar blow on the head of the complainant with the inten on to
kill and to save himself, the complainant has raised his le hand and as such the dater
hit in the le thumb. The pe oner says that the fatal blow was not inflicted by him is
inconsequen al because the FIR men ons sec on 149 of IPC i.e. common object of all
the accused was to cause death. Counsel for the pe oner further submits that the
witnesses, who have been examined, did not support the prosecu on and as such, the
pe oner is likely to be acqui ed. This Court cannot comment on this because if the bail
is granted by observing that the evidence is insufficient for convic on then it would
certainly prejudice the prosecu ons' case. Needles to say, it is for the trial Court to
JYOTI appreciate the evidence of witnesses. In addi on to this, the pe oner has a massive
2023.09.13 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
CRM-M-18763-2023
criminal history including two cases under the NDPS Act and one under a empt to
murder. The trial is at advance stage and in the en rety of facts and circumstances, the
pe oner fails to make out a case for bail.
8. A perusal of the bail pe on and the documents a ached, primafacie points
towards the pe oner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail and he is
neither en tled to bail on merits nor on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial incarcera on.
Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the pe oner; this court refrains from
doing so.
9. Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
The pe on is dismissed. All pending applica ons, if any, stand closed. However,
considering the pe oner's right to speedy trial coupled with the pre-trial incarcera on,
this court requests the concerned trial court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial
by Dec 31, 2023, of which the prosecu on evidence be completed by Oct 31, 2023, and
latest by Nov 30, 2023, and the remaining me to provide an opportunity to the accused
to lead defence evidence, if so desired, and to conclude its hearing. To meet the
deadline, an endeavour be made to speed up the process for service and to pass the
necessary direc ons in this regard. It is clarified that if expedi ng this trial disturbs the
docket of the concerned court, then a balance be struck, and if, on this account, any
delay happens, then an extension can be sought by men oning such reasons. It is
clarified that this order speeding up the trial is subject to the condi on that neither the
pe oner shall seek any adjournment nor try to use any tac cs to delay the trial. If they
do so, this order of expedi ng the trial shall stand automa cally recalled by resor ng to
Sec on 362, read with Sec on 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without any
further reference to this court. If any of the accused is on bail and fail(s) to a end the
trial without any sufficient cause, then they be dealt with strictly but in accordance with
law. It is clarified that if the trial is not concluded by the date men oned above, and if
the delay is not a ributable to the pe oner, then the pe oner may file an applica on
for bail before the trial court, which shall decide it expedi ously and consider the bail on
the grounds of pre-trial custody, and all the previous orders of dismissal passed by the
trial court or High Court shall not come in the way.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
12.09.2023
Jyo -II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
JYOTI Whether reportable: No.
2023.09.13 09:41
I attest to the accuracy and
