Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh @ Satta vs State Of Punjab on 4 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045895
CRM-M-15438-2024 2024:PHHC:045895
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
225
CRM-M-15438-2024
Date of decision: 04.04.2024
SATNAM SINGH @ SATTA
....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. Z.S. Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Raghav Garg, AAG, Punjab.
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.0002 dated
07.01.2024, under Section 379B(2) and 34 of IPC (Section 411 of IPC added later
on), registered at Police Station Mukandpur, District SBS Nagar.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
2. The allegations, against the present petitioner, which culled out from the
FIR are that, a complaint was made by one Kulwinder Kaur, wherein, she has stated
that on 06.01.2024, she along with her daughter came to Mukandpur for purchasing
household articles, and at about 6:00 PM, when they both were standing at bus stand,
Mukandpur, then two persons came on motorcycle. One person out of them put a
daat on her neck, and snatched the gold ear rings of her daughter. She raised a
noise, and nearby people caught hold one of the accused, and the snatched gold ear
rings were recovered from him, but the second accused fled away from the spot. On
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045895
CRM-M-15438-2024 2024:PHHC:045895
- 2-
the next day, i.e. on 07.01.2024, the instant FIR was registered.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his asking for the hereinabove
extracted relief, has made the following submissions:-
(i) No recovery whatsoever, has been effected from the present
petitioner, and the recovery of ear rings, and daat, shown to have
been recovered from the complainant himself, therefore, it is a made
up story;
(ii) In fact the story is other way around, as he was not the person,
who was caught hold by the public on the spot;
(iii) Petitioner is not involved in any similar kind of offences;
(iv) Petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 02 months, as
on today.
(v) The final report has already been filed before the learned trial
Court concerned .
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
4. Per contra, the learned State counsel, who is in receipt of advance
notice, has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner, as issued by the
Superintendent of Central Jail, Ludhiana. The same is taken on record. A perusal of
the custody certificate reveals that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 2
months and 25 days, as on today. A perusal of the custody certificate further reveals
that the petitioner is involved in three other criminal cases. Learned State counsel on
instructions, imparted to him from the official respondent, submits that present
petitioner was the person who was caught hold by the public, but since he has
returned the ear rings, under the pressure of public to the complainant, therefore, he
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045895
CRM-M-15438-2024 2024:PHHC:045895
- 3-
was let of by the public, and subsequent on 07.01.2024, he was arrested by the
Police. Learned State counsel further submits, that the daat was produced by the
complainant, which in fact was used by the petitioner in the commission of crime.
ANALYSIS
5. "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.
6. 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.
7. 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 Calcutta in Nagendra v. King-Emperor
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045895
CRM-M-15438-2024 2024:PHHC:045895
- 4-
[AIR 1924 Cal 476, 479, 480 : 25 Cri LJ 732] that 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 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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045895
CRM-M-15438-2024 2024:PHHC:045895
- 5-
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 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."
8. Also, in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra,
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045895
CRM-M-15438-2024 2024:PHHC:045895
- 6-
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.
9. This Court has examined the instant petition on the touchstone of the
hereinabove extracted settled legal principle(s) of law and is of the considered
opinion that the instant petition is amenable for being allowed.
10. The reason for forming the above inference emanates from the factum
that:- (i) The recovery of daat shown to have been recovered from the complainant;
(ii) The petitioner has suffered incarceration of 2 months and 25 days, as on today;
(iii) Petitioner is not involved in any other similar kind of offence (iv) No fruitful
purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars, (v) Trial is not
likely to conclude anytime soon..
FINAL ORDER
11. Considering the hereinabove made discussion, this Court deems it fit and
appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 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
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045895
CRM-M-15438-2024 2024:PHHC:045895
- 7-
and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial
Court/Duty Magistrate.
12. However, anything observed here-in-above shall have no effect on the
merits of the trial, and is only meant for deciding the present petition.
13. All pending application(s) stand disposed of accordingly.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
04.04.2024 JUDGE
amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
7 of 7
