Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhraj Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049539
209 2024:PHHC:049539
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-7176-2024
DECIDED ON: 10.04.2024
SUKHRAJ SINGH .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. Rajni Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate
for the complainant.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been
invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.151, dated
12.10.2014, under Sections 302, 148, 149, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station
Sarhali, District Tarn Taran.
2. The present case has been registered on the statement of Salwinder
Singh on the allegation that 12.10.2014 at about 7 PM all the accused persons in
furtherance of their common intention inflicted injuries on the person of son of the
complainant as a result of which he succumbed to his injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along-
with other accused persons were declared as innocent in an inquiry conducted by an
officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police on the basis of polygraph test
carried out in Delhi. It is further submitted that no overt act has been attributed to
the petitioner, as is evident from the contents of FIR. Apart from the fact that the
petitioner was present at the spot with datar neither any specific injury nor any
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049539
specific role has been attributed to him. Moreover, the material witnesses did not
support the case of the prosecution as such the co-accused of the petitioner stands
acquitted by learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 04.08.2018 (Annexure P-4).
4. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant pray for
dismissal of the present petition stating that the petitioner was declared proclaimed
offender on 19.01.2015 on account of his absence for a long span thereafter, he
surrender before the trial Court and arrested on 18.08.2018, as such he does not
deserve the concession of bail on this account alone. Moreover, the petitioner is also
involved in another case under IPC meaning thereby, he is habitual offender.
5. Be that as it may, considering the custody period undergone by the
petitioner i.e. 5 years 7 months and 3 days added with the fact that the other co-
accused persons stands acquitted by learned trial Court vide its judgment dated
04.08.2018 (Annexure P-4), no useful purpose would be served by detaining the
petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period.
6. This Court is sanguine of the fact that according to the proposition
settled by the Apex Court that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is
proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and
liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the
principle of "bail is rule and jail is an exception".
7. As far as the pendency of other cases is concerned as has been stated
by learned State counsel, no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal
antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally
true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into
with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the
evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality strict adherence to the rule
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049539
of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability
would lend the petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail.
8. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is directed
to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
9. The present petition is, hereby, allowed.
10. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
10.04.2024 JUDGE
Sham
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
