Punjab-Haryana High Court

Radhe vs State Of Haryana And Another on 25 April, 2024

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056763




CRM-M-19128-2024                                               -1-


                                                             2024:PHHC:056763

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH
223                                     CRM-M-19128-2024
                              Date of Decision :April 25, 2024

RADHE                                                          .....Petitioner

                                      VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER                                   .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present :      Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate
               for the petitioner.

               Mr.Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.

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.219, dated 23.08.2023, under Sections 379-B and 506 of the IPC,

registered at Police Station Rohtak Civil Lines, District Rohtak.

2. On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner,

Sections 363 and 120-B IPC, which were added later on, are ordered to

be added in the head note and prayer clause of the instant petition.

3. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections

accordingly.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER

4. Present FIR was registered on a complaint made by Ashok

alias Sonu, wherein he alleged that on 22.08.2023, at about 8:00 p.m.,

while came out of the gym, his car was parked near the gym. As soon as

1 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056763

he tried to enter into his car, 4-5 young boys came there and started

beating the complainant. They picked the complainant and dumped into

the vehicle and caused injuries to him and threatened him of dire

consequences of death and they even threatened to cause injury by bullet,

but while the vehicle was in process of motion the complainant jumped

out of the vehicle. All the accused fled away from the spot with the

vehicle.

5. On the basis of the above allegations, the case under Sections

379-B and 506 IPC was registered against unknown persons.

SUBMISSIONS     OF    LEARNED        COUNSEL        FOR     THE
PETITIONER

6. In asking for the relief (supra), learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner is not involved in the instant act as

alleged, and his name is not figured out in the instant FIR.

7. He further submits that in fact now the matter has been

compromised between the parties concerned, for which he relied upon

Affidavit dated 28.03.2024 (Annexure P-3), and also submits that the

petitioner alongwith other co-accused has already approached this Court

for quashing of the instant FIR on the basis of compromise by way of

CRM-M-17664-2024, in which notice of motion has been issued, and the

parties concerned have been sent to the learned trial Court/Illaqa

Magistrate, for recording their statements, and which is fixed for

16.07.2024.

8. He further submits that the petitioner has suffered

incarceration of about one month from today and he is not involved in

2 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056763

any other criminal case.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL

9. Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the asked for

relief of grant of regular bail and submits that in fact the name of present

petitioner was figured out on a statement made by the complainant on the

very next day of the occurrence, therefore, the petitioner was arrested

during the investigation.

10. He further submits that the veracity of the compromise

arrived at between the parties concerned, is yet to established as their

respective statements are yet to be recorded before the learned trial Court

concerned.

11. He further submits that the matter is still under investigation

and three more accused, whose names figured out during the

investigation, are yet to be arrested. Therefore, he prays that the instant

petition may be declined.

12. He also files a custody certificate qua the petitioner, which is

taken on record, and, it reflects that the petitioner has suffered

incarceration of 1 month and 02 days as on today, and, he is not involved

in any other criminal case.

ANALYSIS

13. "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)

3 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056763

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.

14. 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.

15. 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 bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. In two

4 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056763

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

5 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056763

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 accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary

6 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056763

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."

16. 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.

17. This Court has examined the instant petition on the

7 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056763

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

18. Be that as it may be, considering the submissions made by

both the parties concerned and is of the view that instant petition deserves

to be allowed, mainly on the ground that the matter has been

compromised between the petitioner and the complainant and the

petitioner has suffered incarceration of 1 month and 2 days, as on today,