Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjot Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098881
CRM-M-35859-2024 1
111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-35859-2024
Date of Decision :August 02, 2024
GURJOT SINGH .....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. G.K.Mann, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Anmol Jeevan Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Pardeep Bajaj, DAG, 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.0002, dated 12.01.2024, under Sections 307, 323, 341, 427 and
34 of the IPC and under Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act,
1959, registered at Police Station Ramdas, District Amritsar Rural.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
2. One Head Constable Rajinder Singh, who is an
injured/victim, made a statement which laid the bedrock for prosecution
to register the instant FIR. The contents of the FIR reads as under:-
"Statement of Head Constable Rajinder Singh, No. 249 ASR- R alias
Happy son of Late Hardev Singh resident of Thoba Police station
Ramdas, District Amritsar, aged about 37 years, Mobile No. 98140-
44831, stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and I am
performing my duty in department of Punjab Police at Police post
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098881
Baba Bakala. Police station Beas, District Amritsar Rural. On
09.01.2024. at about 5:00 pm, I was coming towards my village
Thoba from my duty place in my car bearing registration no. PB02-
CJ-5386, mark Swift Desire of white colour and when I reached near
the village Anaitpura Bagh then I called ASI Kuldeep Singh, posted
at Police post Chamiyari, Police station Ajnala, and informed him
that we both are on duty a the Maghi fair at Sri Muktsar Sahib and he
told me to send him the list of duty and I slowed down my car and
started sending him the list of duty. At that time, one car mark Polo
of white colour without number plate came from behind my car from
Ajnala side, and they stopped their car in front of my car. Out of
which, three clean shaven persons and one Sikh person alighted and
one of them was having datar. another person was having iron toka
and the third was having 32 bore pistol and sikh person who was
driver was empty handed and driver Sikh person right after getting
out of his car said that he may not be spared today, after hearing this,
rest of assailants attacked and broke the car windows with their
respective weapons and they dragged me out of the car and gave me
beatings The person who holding the pistol, pointed his pistol
towards me and fired shot towards me with an intention to kill me,
which hit on my little finger of left hand. I raised a noise "Mar-ditta
Mar-Ditta" then all the assailants with their respective weapons ran
away from the spot in their car towards G.T. Road Gaggomahal. Due
to many injuries, I got my treatment from private Hospital Baba
Deep Singh Ajnala. Being a police officer, I have been looking for
the said persons till date, who could not be found Today I along with
Sukhwant Singh son of Sh. Dilbagh Singh resident of Dhangai
Police station Ramdas, came to inform you, you met us, appropriate
strict action be taker against unidentified persons. 1 be given justice.
Staternent has been recorded, heard and is correct. Sd/- Rajinder
Singh 249 R, Head Constable Rajinder Sirgh No. 249 ASR-R,
verifiec by Sd/- Sukhwant Singh 97819-47480, attested by Sukhjit
Singh ASI/ IC PP Police post Gaggomahal, Police statior Ramdas,
dated 12.1.2024."
3. What surfaced from the perusal of the instant FIR is that, no
one has been named in the FIR, in fact, it has been registered against
some unknown persons. During investigation, on dated 17.03.2024, DDR
No.19 was registered, wherein Nishan Singh, Gurjot Singh (present
petitioner) Gurjit Singh and Simranjit Singh, were nominated as an
accused in the instant FIR. Consequently, on dated 20.03.2024, Nishan
Singh and present petitioner-Gurjot Singh, were arrested and both were
got identified from the complainant, i.e. HC Rajinder Singh.
4. As per the prosecution case, present petitioner (Gurjot Singh)
got recovered one iron dater, which according to the prosecution was
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098881
used in the commission of crime. It further reflects from the record that
out of total 4 accused named in the investigation, three have already been
arrested, except one Simranjit Singh.
5. It is a positive case of the prosecution that the HC Rajinder
Singh, complainant, has suffered a gunshot injury on little finger of his
left hand.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
6. In asking for the relief (supra), learned senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that the instant FIR, was registered initially against
some unknown persons, that too after delay of two days, of the alleged
occurrence. Therefore, there is a considerable delay in lodging the FIR, as
the date of occurrence is on dated 09.01.2024, whereas, instant FIR has
been lodged on 12.01.2024.
7. She further submits that the petitioner was arrayed as an
accused in the instant FIR on 17.03.2024, i.e. after the delay of more than
two months.
8. She also submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since
20.03.2024, and the challan has been presented, whereas, the charges are
yet to be framed.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
9. Per contra, the learned State counsel vociferously opposes
the asked for relief of grant of regular bail to the petitioner, on the ground
that the accused persons have audacity to attack upon the police official,
who was on duty.
10. He further submits that the victim (HC Rajinder Singh)
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098881
suffered a gunshot injury on his little finger, therefore, the petitioner is
entitled to relief (supra).
11. He has placed on record a custody certificate qua the
petitioner, which reflects that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of
4 months and 6 days as on today, and he is not involved in any other
criminal case.
12. He further submits, on instructions from ASI Avtar Singh,
that the challan has been present in the instant case however, charges are
yet to be framed.
ANALYSIS
13. Before embarking upon the process of evaluating the
arguments addressed by the learned counsels for the parties and penning
down any opinion upon the instant petition, it is deemed imperative to
capture an overview of some significant legal propositions.
14. "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.
15. The right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098881
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.
16. In "Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab", (1980) 2
SCC 565 at 586-588, the purpose of granting bail is set out by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court 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, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 (479, 480) that 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 Allahabad 504 (SB) 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.
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098881
H.L. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 at p. 358 it was
said that it was very unwise to make an attempt to lay down
any particular rules which 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 presumably
innocent person must have his freedom to enable him to
establish his innocence.
XX XX XX
29. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1
SCC 118 it was observed by Goswami, J., who spoke for
the Court, that "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, Vol. 8, page 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
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098881
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."
17. Also, in "Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others Versus Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh", 1978 AIR (Supreme
Court) 429, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, speaking through Krishna Iyer,
J., has enunciated the principles of bail thus :
"9. Thus the legal principle and practice validate the
court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering
with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting
the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational,
in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man
who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad
record-particularly a record which suggests that he is
likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to
habitual, it is part of criminological history that a
thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the
opportunity to inflict further crimes on the member of
society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the
criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise
in irrelevance.
10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the
deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and
permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable,
even-handed and geared to he goals of community good
and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the
considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the
constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness
postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation
of freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but
for the bi-focal interests of justice - to the individual
involved and society affected.
11. We must weight the contrary factors to answer the
test the reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the
presence of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume
that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare of
present his case than one remanded in custody. And if
public justice is to be promoted. mechanical detention
should be demoted. In the United States, which has a
constitutional perspective close to ours, the function of bail
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098881
is limited, 'community roots' of the applicant are stressed
and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project,
monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable
public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of
disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible
consideration. Equally important is the deplorable
condition, verging on the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that
the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of
avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail
unreasonable and a policy favouring release justly
sensible.
12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All
deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and
individual correction along an anti-criminal direction.
Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law.
Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness
should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the
man, even through community service, meditative drill,
study classes or other resources should be innovated, and
playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence,
intimidating witnesses or committing offences while on
judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise', should be provided
against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on
the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung
around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the
holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by
the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our
Constitution.
13. Viewed from this perspective, we gain a better
insight into the rules of the game. When a person, charged
with a grave offence, has been acquitted at a stage, has the
intermediate acquittal pertinence to a bail plea when the
appeal before this Court pends? Yes, it has. The panic
which might prompt the accused to jump the gauntlet of
justice is less, having enjoyed the confidence of the court's
verdit once. Concurrent holdings of guilt have the opposite
effect. Again, the ground for denial of provisional release
becomes weaker when the fact stares us in the face that a
fair finding if that be so - of innocence has been recorded
by one court. It may not be conclusive, for the judgment of
acquittal may be ex facie wrong, the likelihood of
desperate reprisal, if enlarged, may be a deterrent and his
own safety may be more in prison than in the vengeful
village where feuds have provoked the violent offence. It
depends. Antecedents of the man and socio-geographical
circumstances have a bearing only from this angle. Police
exaggerations of prospective misconduct of the accused, if
enlarged, must be soberly sized up lest danger of excesses
and injustice creep subtly into the discretionary curial
technique. Bad record and policy prediction of criminal
prospects to invalidate the bail plea are admissible in
principle but shall not stampede the court into a
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098881
complacent refusal."
FINAL ORDER
18. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that
further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted in the instant
matter and he deserves to be released on regular bail, for the reasons
assigned hereinbelow:-
i. There is a considerable delay in the registration of
instant FIR;
ii. the petitioner is not named in the FIR;
iii. no specific injury is attributed to the present
petitioner in the FIR;
iv. the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 4 months
and 6 days on today;
v. the veracity of the allegation is yet to be established
by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence before the
trial court concerned;
vi. the petitioner has clean antecedents; and,
vii. finally, the trial is yet to begin, therefore, conclusion
of the trial would take long time.
Consequently, without commenting upon the merits and
circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed. The
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on furnishing of his bail bond
and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial
Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
19. However, it is clarified that if in future, the petitioner is
found indulging in commission of similar offences, as is 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,
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098881
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)
August 02, 2024 JUDGE
dharamvir
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
10 of 10
