Punjab-Haryana High Court
Aman vs State Of Haryana on 3 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045154
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
2024:PHHC: 045154
(216) CRM-M-5745-2024
Date of Decision: 03.04.2024
Aman --Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana --Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI.
Present:- Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhinash Jain, 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. 0373 dated 27.06.2023, under Section 346 of the IPC, (with Sections
201, 302 and 120-B IPC, added later on and Section 346 has been removed),
registered at Police Station, Gharaunda, District Karnal.
2. The petitioner was arrested on 04.07.2023. The only allegation
against the petitioner is that main accused before committing murder of the
victim, handed over his mobile phone to the present petitioner, so that his
mobile location could not connect the main accused with the crime. The
brief facts of the present case which are culled out by the Trial Court read as
under:-
"2. Brief facts of the case are that on
27.06.2023, complainant Kiran wife of Devi Singh presented
an application to the effect that her husband Devi Singh alias
Sonu works as an electrician in Ansul Food, G.T. Road and he
has not returned from his duties on 26.06.2023. She prayed for
initiation of an action. On this information, FIR under Section
346 IPC was registered. Thereafter, the statement of
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045154
complainant Kiran Devi was recorded by the police, in which,
she disclosed that she had become friends with Sachin son of
Surjit and they were also in a relationship. Both of them
started doing journalism together. Sachin developed good
relations with her husband Devi Singh also and they both used
to drink alcohol together. However, later on, her husband
Devi Singh stopped her from working with Sachin, however,
Sachin used to force her to meet him. She further stated that
she had to get some money from Sachin and for this purpose,
Sachin called her at Paral Dhaba on 26.06.2023. She met him
there and talked to him for 40 minutes and told him to clear
her dues and she also told him that she will not meet him in
future. On this, Sachin told her that he will see her and even
she will not remain happy for ever. The complainant raised
suspicion that Sachin son of Surjit has concealed her husband
at some unknown place."
3. After registration of the FIR (supra), investigation was carried
out, and Sachin was arrested on dated 26.07.2023, wherein, he disclosed
about commission of the offence, and thereupon, offence under Sections
201 and 302 IPC were added and offence under Section 346 IPC was
deleted from the FIR (supra). It is also transpired from the investigation,
that the dead body of the deceased was also got recovered by Sachin. The
role of present petitioner surfaced on the disclosure statement made by
Sachin, wherein, he stated that he also met the present petitioner, and they
both consumed liquor together and thereafter, he called Devi Singh
deceased, to meet him at 6 PM for the purpose of drinking alcohol. It also
transpires from the disclosure statement of main accused Sachin that, he
disclosed about his intention that he is going to eliminate Devi Singh today,
and further handed over his mobile phone to the present petitioner so that
his mobile location could not be connected with the commission of crime.
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045154
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIOER
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the
disclosure statement of main accused Sachin, there is nothing on record
which could connect the present petitioner with the crime. He further
submits that recovery of the mobile phone (though disputed) of the main
accused, would also not complete the chain of circumstantial evidence so as
to connect the present petitioner with the instant crime. He further submits
that there is no allegation that he conspired with the main accused to
commit murder nor any motive has been attributed to the present petitioner.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
5. Learned State counsel upon notice has filed reply by way of
affidavit. The reply (supra) carries the translated copy of disclosure
statement of present petitioner Aman, wherein, it has been disclosed by the
petitioner that the main accused Sachin informed him about his intention to
eliminate Devi Singh, the deceased and also handed over him his mobile
phone.
6. Be that as it may. Considering the fact that prima facie, no case
is made out against the present petitioner, as no motive has been attributed
to him, and also the fact that he is not involved in commission of murder,
petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. The only role assigned to
the petitioner was that he was informed by the main accused Sachin, that he
would eliminate Devi Singh-deceased as well as handing over his mobile
phone to the petitioner so as to avoid his mobile phone location be
connected with commission of crime.
7. Learned State counsel has placed on record a custody certificate
qua the petitioner, which is taken on record, and perusal of the same reveals
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045154
that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 08 months and 28 days as on
02.04.2024.
ANALYSIS
8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for both the parties
concerned, and has gone through the entire case file as also the reply filed
by the State.
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:-
"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
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045154
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 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
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045154
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. 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
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045154
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:-
"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 instant case is based upon
circumstantial evidence, the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 08
months and 28 days as on today, the trial is at initial stage and further the
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045154
petitioner has clean antecedents, this Court deems it fit and 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.
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.
03.04.2024 (KULDEEP TIWARI)
lucky JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
