Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatin Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 16 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050945
CRM-M-4670-2024 &
CRM-M-16973-2024 -1-
2024:PHHC:050945
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
107 CRM-M-4670-2024
Date of Decision : April 16, 2023
JATIN KUMAR .....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent
297 CRM-M-16973-2024
RAHUL KHURANA .....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr.I.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-4670-2024.
Mr.Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate,
for the petitioner CRM-M-16973-2024
Mr.Pardeep Bajaj, DAG, Punjab.
KULDEEP TIWARI. J.(Oral)
1. Since both the petitions arise out of the same FIR therefore,
both are taken together for its adjudication.
2. Through the instant petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
the petitioners pray for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.70, dated
26.05.2022, under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC (Section 120-B
IPC added latter on), registered at Police Station Sadar Malour, District
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050945
CRM-M-4670-2024 &
Sri Muktsar Sahib.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
3. The prosecution agency was set into motion on a complaint
made by one Sardool Singh, who alleged that on dated 20.05.2022, at
about 4:00 P.M. his son Vikramjeet Singh alisa Vicky, received a phone
call and he left while saying that he will return home shortly, but he did
not return. The complainant made several call to his son but he received
no response. On dated 22.05.2022, he came to know that the dead body of
his son has been recovered from the drain in the area of village Malout.
As his son died in suspicious circumstances, therefore, the proceedings
under Section 174 Cr.P.C., were carried out. Thereupon, the complainant
at his own level conducted some inquiries, and discovered that his son
Vikramjeet Singh (since deceased), has infact, been murdered by the
present petitioners, by giving him some poisonous and intoxicant
substance, which lead to his death and thereafter, they disposed of the
body of aforesaid victim in a drain.
4. During the investigation both the petitioners were arrested,
and they suffered disclosure statement, that they used to purchase the
intoxicant substance (heroin) from one Lovepreet Singh, and thereupon,
they used to consume it, and on dated 29.05.2022, Lovepreet Singh was
also arrested in the instant matter.
5. It is admitted fact that the aforesaid Lovepreet Singh, has
been granted regular bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 05.10.2023, passed in CRM-M-34599-2022.
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050945
CRM-M-4670-2024 &
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS
6. In asking for the relief (supra), learned counsel for the
petitioners submit that till date, the prosecution has not been able to
collect any evidence, to substantiate the allegations as alleged againts the
present petitioners.
7. They further submit that except the statement of the father of
the deceased-Vikramjeet Singh, that too based on suspicions, the
prosecution has no evidence to connect the present petitioners with the
crime
8. They further submit that till date the prosecution has no
evidence to conclude that it is a case of homicidal death, as neither poison
nor heroin, was detected in the viscera collected during postmortem of
the deceased.
9. They also submit that the petitioners have already suffered
incarceration of more than 1 ½ year, and the trial is at initial stage, and
conclusion of which will take long time, therefore, their further
incarceration is unwarranted.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
10. Per contra, the learned State counsel vociferously opposed
the asked for relief, on the ground that they have committed heinous
offence as they have administered overdose of heroin to the deceased
which led to his death.
11. Further, he has placed on record a status report dated
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050945
CRM-M-4670-2024 &
15.04.2024 (in CRM-M-4670-2024), by way of affidavits of Mr.
Pawanjit, DSP, Sub-Division, Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, and
also the custody certificate qua the petitioners, which are taken on record.
12. From the aforesaid reply, he draws attention of this Court
towards Annexure R-3, which is a medical opinion of the concerned
doctor,and according to that the effect of heroin remains in plasma only
for 2-3 hours, and elimination of heroin from the body will take complete
24 hours. The relevant extract from the status report (supra) reads as
under:-
"(v).........the efffect of Heorin remains in Plazma t ½ of
morphine:- 2-3 hours. Effect of parenteral dose:- 4-6 hours.
Elimination of Heroin from body is almost complete in 24 hours
and morphine is non-cumulative........."
13. Learned State counsel, on instructions imparted to him by
ASI Tejwinder Singh, informs this Court that out of the total 28
prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution in the final report, 03
witnesses have already been examined.
14. A perusal of the custody certificate reveals that the
petitioners have suffered incarceration of 1 year, 10 months and 18 days
as on today. Petitioner Jatin Kumar is stated to be involved in two more
criminal cases, whereas, petitioner-Rahul Khurana, is not involved in any
other criminal case.
ANALYSIS
15. This Court has heard the learned counsel for both the parties
concerned, and has gone through the entire case file, and also the replies
filed by the State.
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050945
CRM-M-4670-2024 &
16. "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.
17. 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.
18. 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
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050945
CRM-M-4670-2024 &
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
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050945
CRM-M-4670-2024 &
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.
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:
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050945
CRM-M-4670-2024 &
"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."
19. 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
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050945
CRM-M-4670-2024 &
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.
20. 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
21. Be that as it may be, this Court without going into the issue
whether, it is a case of homicidal death or not, which is the mute
question, required to be decided by the learned trial Court concerned, at
an appropriate stage, but considering the nature of the evidence collected
so far, by the prosecution, and the petitioners have suffered incarceration
of 1 year, 10 months and 18 days, as on today, and trial will take some
time to conclude, and out of the total 28 prosecution witnesses, only 03
have been examined till date, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to
grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners, during the
pendency of trial. 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 their bail
bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial
Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050945
CRM-M-4670-2024 &
22. 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
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 16, 2024 JUDGE
dharamvir/ajay-1
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
10 of 10
