Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Kumar @ Sanju vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056724
CRM-M-19213-2024 -1-
2024:PHHC:056724
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
224 CRM-M-19213-2024
Date of Decision :April 25, 2024
SANDEEP KUMAR @ SANJU .....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.
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.83, dated 05.09.2023, under Sections 379-B(2) read with Section
34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, (Section 411 and
201 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Division-C, District
Amritsar.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith co-
accused, had threatened the complainant with a pistol and snatched his
money bag containing Rs.1 lakh in cash, while he was going to his home
after closing his shop on a motorcycle.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER
3. In asking for the relief (supra), learned counsel for the
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056724
petitioner submits that a false case which has been implanted upon him
and he is in judicial custody since 15.11.2023.
4. He further submits that though the petitioner is involved in
another criminal case of similar nature, but in that case, he is already on
bail.
5. He further submits that the present petitioner was arrested
after one month of the alleged occurrence, and the other co-accused-Sahil
@ Gardela, Jaspreet Singh and Shivam @ Shiva, have been granted
regular bail by the learned trial Court concerned itself, whereas bail
application of the present petitioner was dismissed only on the ground
that there was a recovery of a pistol and live cartridges from the present
petitioner, otherwise, the role of the present petitioner is similar to that of
other co-accused, who have been granted bail by the learned trial Court
concerned.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
6. Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the asked for
relief of grant of regular bail, and has filed a custody certificate qua the
petitioner, which is taken on record, and, it reflects that the petitioner has
suffered incarceration of 5 months and 8 days as on today, and, he is
involved in two other criminal cases, out of which one is of a similar
nature whereas, the other is under the provisions of the Arms Act.
However, in both the cases the petitioner is on bail.
7. He further, on instructions imparted to him by ASI Salwinder
Singh, submits that after investigation the final report was submitted on
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056724
dated 21.02.2023, and the prosecution has cited total 23 witnesses in the
final report, and the trial is yet to start.
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
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056724
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
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
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056724
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.
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
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056724
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."
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
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056724
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. Be that as it may be, considering the fact that the petitioner
has suffered incarceration of 5 months and 8 days, as on today, and
further the co-accused-Sahil @ Gardela, Jaspreet Singh and Shivam @
Shiva, have already been extended the benefit of regular bail by the
learned trial Court concerned, who on equal footing to the petitioner, and
the trial is yet to start, 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
regular 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
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056724
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.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
April 25, 2024 JUDGE
dharamvir
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
8 of 8
