Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder vs State Of Haryana on 18 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052120
2024:PHHC:052120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
225
CRM-M-17762-2024
Date of decision: April 18, 2024
RAVINDER
...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhinash Jain, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)
1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the
petitioner craves for indulgence of this Court for his being enlarged on regular
bail, in case FIR No.167, dated 17.04.2023, under Sections 323, 324, 326 and
506 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Hisar.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution
agency was set into motion on a complaint made by Ravinder son of Satbir to
the effect that on 15.04.2023 at about 9.30/10.00 p.m., he received a telephonic
call from the present petitioner, who asked him to come to Hisar to attend a
party, upon which the complainant reached at Gate No.4, Hisar, from where the
petitioner-accused took him to a hotel. During the party, an altercation took
between both of them and the petitioner-accused inflicted multiple stab injuries
upon the complainant i.e. in his chest, waist, right hand and left leg with knife.
Consequently, the complainant-victim fell down unconscious. Thereupon, he
was shifted to the hospital.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052120
2024:PHHC:052120
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is asking for the relief of regular
bail and has submitted that the grievous injury suffered by the complainant-
victim is in fact on non-vital part.
4. He further submits that the petitioner has suffered about 1 year
incarceration and out of 8 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 2 have been
examined.
5. He next submits that the case is triable by Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, therefore, the conclusion of trial would take long time.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
6. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of regular
bail to the petitioner while citing the antecedents of the petitioner and has
submitted that he is involved in 4 more cases, therefore, he is a habitual
offender. Although he has admitted the fact that out of 8 witnesses, only 2 have
been examined so far and that the case is triable by Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class.
7. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the
petitioner in the Court today, which is taken on record. A perusal of the custody
certificate reveals that the petitioner has in fact suffered incarceration of about
11 months and 10 days in the instant FIR and he is facing trial in 4 more cases,
out of which, in one of the cases, he has already undergone the sentence
awarded to him and in another case, he is on bail.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052120
2024:PHHC:052120
ANALYSIS
8. "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.
9. 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.
10. 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
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052120
2024:PHHC:052120
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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052120
2024:PHHC:052120
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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052120
2024:PHHC:052120
one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity
or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail."
11. 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 liberty.
12. 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
13. Considering the fact that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of
11 months and 10 days, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession
of regular bail to the petitioner. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052120
2024:PHHC:052120
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 and surety
bond to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty
Magistrate.
14. However, it is clarified that if in future, the petitioner is 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.
April 18, 2024 (KULDEEP TIWARI)
Jaspreet Kaur JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
