Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046352
CRM-M-15268-2024 & -1-
CRM-M-15278-2024
2024:PHHC:046352
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
135 CRM-M-15268-2024
Date of Decision :April 05, 2024
BALWINDER SINGH .....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent
CRM-M-15278-2024
GAGANDEEP SINGH .....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr.Karanbir Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Pardeep Bajaj, DAG, Punjab.
KULDEEP TIWARI. J.(Oral)
1. Both the petitions arise out of the same FIR, therefore, being
amenable for common decision, same are taken up together.
2. Through the instant petition, the petitioners crave for
indulgence of this Court for their being enlarged on regular bail, in case
FIR No.97, dated 04.06.2021, under Sections 306, 506 and 34 of the IPC,
registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
3. The prosecution agency was set into motion on the statement
of one Bhupinder Singh, on the basis of his statement the instant FIR has
been registered. The gist of the FIR as culled by by the learned
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046352
CRM-M-15268-2024 & -2-
CRM-M-15278-2024
Additional Sessions Judge concerned, while declining the regular bail,
vide order dated 02.03.2024, reads as under:-
"4. Perusal of the record indicates that the FIR has been
registered on the statement suffered by Bhupinder Singh,
interalia, alleging that he is an agriculturist. His father Gurcharan
Singh are three brothers. Gurcharan Singh is eldest and younger
to him is Arjan Singh and youngest is Balwant Singh. Balwant
Singh was residing with his in-laws at Village Nasibpura. He had
one son namely Ram Bahal Singh and a daughter namely
Jaspreet Kaur. His aunt (Chachi) Chinderpal Kaur had died on
26.04.2021 during Corona Pandemic. Ram Bahal Singh visited
him at his village in connection with some work. At about 12.30
PM, he received a cell phone call from Jaspreet Kaur informing
that Balwant Singh had consumed poison and asked him to rush
home. They arranged vehicle and reached there. His uncle Arjan
Singh was first to reach Village Nasibpura where he found
Balwant Singh in unconscious condition. He lifted him and
carried him to Sidhu Hospital, Bathinda for treatment. At about
1.30 PM, he along with Ram Bahal Singh reached the hospital.
His uncle Arjan Singh went back to the village. Balwant Singh
died during treatment at about 7.30 PM. They found a suicide
note in the pocket of the clothes of Balwant Singh stating that he
was being harassed by his sister-in-law (Sali) Rajwinder Kaur
and brother-in-law (Sadhu) Balwinder Singh and Gagandeep
Singh in connection with partition of land and used to threaten
him and he was committed suicide on account of being harassed
by them and they would be responsible for his death. His last
rites be performed at Village Bangi."
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no case
whatsoever, under Section 306 IPC, is made out, if even the allegations
(supra) are treated as a gospel truth, as the ingredients of Section 107 IPC
is totally absent.
5. He further submits that one of the co-accused i.e. Rajwinder
Kaur, qua whom there are similar allegations, has been extended the
benefit of pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 14.03.2024.
6. He further submits that the matter has been amicably settled
with the complainant-Bhupinder Singh, and the petitioners have also
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046352
CRM-M-15268-2024 & -3-
CRM-M-15278-2024
preferred a petition, for quashing of the instant FIR, on the basis of
compromise, vide bearing No.CRM-M-10869-2022, which is pending
adjudication before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein, the
parties have been directed to appear before the learned Illaqa
Magistrate/trial Court concerned, for recording their respective
statements qua compromise.
7. He further submits that the petitioners were arrested way
back on 07.02.2024, and since then they are behind bars, and they are not
involved in any other criminal case.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
8. Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the asked for
relief of grant of regular bail, on the ground that, there is an offence
punishable under Section 306 IPC, in the FIR (supra), therefore, benefit
of regular bail cannot be extended to the petitioners.
9. He further submits, on instructions imparted to him by ASI
Jasvir Singh, that investigation in the instant FIR, has already been
completed, and the final report has already been filed, and during the
investigation, a suicide note has been recovered from the pocket of the
deceased, however, a report from the handwriting expert has not been
received so far. Further, both the petitioners are not involved in any other
criminal case.
ANALYSIS
10. "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
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046352
CRM-M-15268-2024 & -4-
CRM-M-15278-2024
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.
11. 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.
12. 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 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
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046352
CRM-M-15268-2024 & -5-
CRM-M-15278-2024
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
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046352
CRM-M-15268-2024 & -6-
CRM-M-15278-2024
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
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046352
CRM-M-15268-2024 & -7-
CRM-M-15278-2024
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."
13. 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
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046352
CRM-M-15268-2024 & -8-
CRM-M-15278-2024
liberty.
14. 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
15. Considering the above fact that though this Court is not
taking congnizanace of compromise, however, prima facie this Court is
of the view that there is a merit in the contention of learned counsel for
the petitioners, that the ingredients of Section 107 IPC, are absent, and
further the veracity of the alleged suicide note is yet to be established as
the report of handwriting expert is still awaited, and the petitioners are
behind bars since 07.02.2024, and the trial is yet to commence, coupled
with the fact that since the main star witness, i.e. the complainant, has
compromised the matter with the petitioners, there are less chance that the
complainant is going to support the case of the prosecution, this Court
deems it fit and appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the
petitioners. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits and
circumstances of the present case, the present petitions are allowed. The
petitioners are 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.
16. However, it is clarified that if in future, the petitioners are
found indulging in commission of similar offences, as are involved
herein, the respondent-State shall be at liberty to make an appropriate
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046352
CRM-M-15268-2024 & -9-
CRM-M-15278-2024
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.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the
connected case.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
April 05, 2024 JUDGE
dharamvir
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. :
9 of 9
