Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspal Singh @ Fauji vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048217
CRM-M-16164-2024 2024:PHHC:048217
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
225
CRM-M-16164-2024
Date of decision: 09.04.2024
JASPAL SINGH @ FAUJI
....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. Prince Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Raghav Garg, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Lokesh Vohra, Advocate
for the complainant.
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.218 dated
04.12.2023, under Sections 307, 323, 148 and 149 of IPC, and under Sections 25
and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, Tehsil
& District Ferozepur, Punjab.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
2. The prosecution story as unfold from the reading of the instant FIR,
which reads as under:-
"Statement of Gurjant Singh son of Amar Singh son of Tan Singh
resident of Attari, Police Station Arif Ke, District Ferozepur age 35,
mobile no. 94654-18065 that I am resident of the above mentioned
address and priest at Gurudwara. Yesterday around 7 o'clock, I along
with my uncle's (Taya) son Dharminder Singh son of Sucha Singh and
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048217
CRM-M-16164-2024 2024:PHHC:048217
- 2-
my father Amar Singh were coming to Ferozepur City for our
household work on their motorbikes. I was riding my motorcycle
bearing registration number PB-05-AG-4125 and my father and cousin
were coming behind me. It was around 7:30 PM, when I arrived near of
Nawa Sodde Wala, then a car number bearing registration no. PB02
BL 8884 Swift car came in high speed from the front side, which hit
with my motorcycle and I fell on the road. My cousin Dharminder Singh
and father also reached who said to the car driver that you hit the boy,
why did you not drive carefully, car driver was along with another
person and two other women and they were arguing with my father &
also abusing and they came, then one person came from the front shop,
he hit air pump on shoulder of my father Amar Singh and they
quarreled, then woman came out of the car and raised voice that why
did you keep gun, they are quarreling with us, then car driver shot fire
with his gun with the intention to kill which hit in the stomach of my
cousin Dharminder Singh, then my father and I screamed "maar dita
maar difta", the accused left the said car and ran away. Later on, my
father arranged a ride and he admitting my cousin Dharminder Singh
and me at Civil Hospital Ferozepur. We personally searched for the
driver of the car who shot bullet and found their name is Jaspal Singh
Fauji son of Hira Singh resident of Jawahar Nagar, Mehta Road, Sri
Amritsar, Harpal Singh son of Ratan Singh resident of Round Khera,
Police Station Qila Lal Singh District Gurdaspur and shopkeeper
namely Harpal Sharma son of Prem Lal resident of New Sodde Wala,
police station Sadar Ferozepur. Jaspal Singh Fauji and two unknown
women have injured me by hitting car and shot bullet at my cousin
Dharminder Singh with the intention of killing him. So, take legal
action against them and provide justice. The statement has been written
and heard over. My cousin Dharminder Singh has been referred to
DMC Ludhiana due to severe health. I have been discharged. I was
coming to you to write a statement, the statement has been written and
heard which is correct, Sd/- Gurjant Singh, Gurjant Singh son of Amar
Singh, verified by ASI Gurnam Singh, Police Station Sadar Ferozepur
dated 04.12.2023. Police Action: Today 1 ASI was present at the police
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048217
CRM-M-16164-2024 2024:PHHC:048217
- 3-
station, then the MHC of police station produced an MLR No.
315/AA/MLR/CHF/2023 of Gurjant Singh son of Amar Singh resident
of Attari in which total four injuries were sustained. All the injuries are
blunt and injury no. 1 has been placed under X-Ray and in Memo
(Ruka) No. 2065 dated 03-12-2023 of Dharminder Singh son of Sucha
Singh resident of Attari which wrote that he is injured by bullet of
weapon. I ASI was going along with HC Ramesh Kumar 1263, CT
Manveer Singh 659/FZR, PHG Davinder Kumar 6061, PHG Jarnail
Singh 5828 and were going to Civil Hospital Ferozepur on private
vehicle for recording statement, when I ASI reached at the gate of Civil
Hospital Ferozepur, then Gurjant Singh met and he recorded his
statement before me which was read over to him, after admitted the
same to be correct, he signed in English Language below his statement
which it verified and as per statement found offence under section
307/323/148/149 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. The statement is
sending at police station by handed of Davinder Kumar for registration
of the F.I.R., after the registration of F.I.R. no. may be intimated. The
special report be sent to the higher officials and informed to PCR. I am
going along with my fellow employees and the complainant Gurjant
Singh at the spot of occurrence, SD/ Gurnam Singh ASI, PS Sadar
Ferozepur dated 04.12.2023. Today at the jurisdiction of Civil Hospital,
Ferozepur at 07.05 PM. Today at Police Station: At this time the
statement received and registered F.I.R. against above said accused
and a copy of F.I.R. along with statement is sending by handed of PHG
before the ASI for further investigation. Special reports are sending to
senior officials & Ilaqa Magistrate by handed of L/CT Jaswinder Kaur
No. 614/FZR. The information is providing to PCR via wireless."
The perusal of the FIR (supra) reveals that it is a case, where a quarrel
had taken place between the accused person, and the complainant, as the car of the
accused person has hit the motorcycle of one of the victim. Though, it is a case
where one of the victim namely Dharminder Singh, has suffered gun short injury,
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048217
CRM-M-16164-2024 2024:PHHC:048217
- 4-
but since he has entered into a compromise with the accused person, and in the
compromise he has specifically stated that it is a case of mistaken identity. It is
agreed in the compromise that they do not know about the real culprit, and in fact,
they have named the accused person on the behest of the public, who have informed
them at the time of occurrence.
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) Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case;
(ii) It is case of mistaken identity, and the present petitioner is not
named in the present FIR;
(iii) The matter stands compromised between the parties;
(iv) As per the compromise effected between the parties, the
complainant do not want to pursue the instant complaint, against the
present petitioner;
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
Additional Superintendent of Central Jail Ferozepur. The same is taken on record. A
perusal of the custody certificate reveals that the petitioner has suffered incarceration
of 04 months and 05 days, as on today. A perusal of the custody certificate further
reveals that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. Learned State
counsel has opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, and submits that
petitioner is the person who has caused gun short injury to one Dharminder Singh.
Learned State counsel on instructions, imparted to him by the official respondent,
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048217
CRM-M-16164-2024 2024:PHHC:048217
- 5-
submits that the final report had already been filed on 29.02.2024, and the charges
are yet to be framed.
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
[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,
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048217
CRM-M-16164-2024 2024:PHHC:048217
- 6-
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
after his own case. A presumably innocent person must have
his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence.
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048217
CRM-M-16164-2024 2024:PHHC:048217
- 7-
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,
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
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048217
CRM-M-16164-2024 2024:PHHC:048217
- 8-
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 matter has been compromised between the parties, to the effect that
petitioner is not the assailant, rather it is a case of mistaken identity; (ii) The
petitioner has suffered incarceration of 04 months and 05 days, as on today; (iii) The
final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 29.02.2024, (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
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048217
CRM-M-16164-2024 2024:PHHC:048217
- 9-
furnishing of bail bond 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)
09.04.2024 JUDGE
amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
9 of 9
