Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikash Alias Popat vs State Of Haryana on 2 August, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098859
CRM-M-317-2024 1
203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-317-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 02.08.2024
VIKASH ALIAS POPAT ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. V.K.Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has
been invoked seeking the concession for the grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in FIR No.144 dated 20.05.2023, under Sections 387/506 IPC,
1860 (challan presented under Sections 109/120-B/201/387/506 IPC)
registered at Police Station Loharu, District Bhiwani, Haryana.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR read as under :-
'To The SHO Saheb Police Station Loharu. Subject
Regarding filing a complaint against the person who demanded
ransom from me and on refusing threatened to kill me. Sir, I am
Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Nandlal Tancja, Caste Punjabi resident
of Ward No.11 Loharu. Today I went to Hisar for my personal
work. There was a function going on. During that time three-
four whatsapp call came on my mobile No. 8856033076 but I
could not listen. After some time the neighbors of my shop in
Loharu Mohit Kakkar received a call from the same number and
the caller told him to get talked with Sunil (Shilu) Popat is
speaking. When Mohit made my son to talk him, he threatened
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098859
my son that Popat is speaking. Tell your father to give me Rs 30
lakh within two days, otherwise I will kill your father. Many
cases are registered against me. If you also want, file an FIR in
the police station. It doesn't matter, I want 3000000/- (Thirty
lakh) rupees otherwise I will kill your father. Sir, taking the
above threat seriously, strict action be taken against this person
and me and my family be protected. SD Sunil Kumar
9416824119 Owner-Yash Cloth Emporium Loharu.'
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The alleged allegations
against the petitioner is that the mobile phone used in the commissioning
of the offence has been recovered from the petitioner and this fact has not
been denied that the offence is triable by the Magistrate wherein the
petitioner has been in custody for last more than 1 year and 1 month. He
submits that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner
behind the bars as no further recovery is to be made from the petitioner.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on
advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has filed
the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record.
According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year, 1 month and
5 days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from SI Virender
Singh opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the
petitioner is involved in other FIRs. He informs the Court that in the
present case challan stands presented on 20.09.2023 and charges stands
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098859
framed on 14.11.2023 and out of 19 prosecution witnesses, 16 have been
examined.
4. Analysis
From the above case it can be culled out that a mobile phone
has been recovered from the petitioner used for commissioning of offence
wherein he has already suffered sufficient period in custody i.e. 1 year, 1
month and 5 days and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence,
no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond
reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case, challan stands presented on
20.09.2023 and charges stands framed on 14.11.2023 and out of 19
prosecution witnesses, 16 have been examined so far which is sufficient
for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take
considerable time and detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an
indefinite period would serve no purpose.
Reliance can be made upon the judgment of the Apex Court
rendered in "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another",
2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of
bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in
correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is
reproduced as under:-
"2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the
presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is
believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are
instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been
placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but
that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental
postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet
of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general
rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098859
home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception.
Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been
lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being
incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to
our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the
discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise
of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of
decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the
country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether
denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the
facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be
considered is whether the accused was arrested during
investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity
to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the
investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused
person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for
placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed.
Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was
participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the
investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing
when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is
not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some
genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a
factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case.
It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused
is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if
so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The
poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an
extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice
of it by incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to
incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section
436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098859
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by
a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect
or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There
are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an
accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the
requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that
there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and
other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman
Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5)
Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been
elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in
Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609
going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision,
reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back
in Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that bail is
not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to
Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 wherein it was
observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
The provision for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal
interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old,
going back to colonial days.
7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should
be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely
within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though
that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in
a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the
grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of
compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory."
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the
basic fundamental law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair
and just procedure guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098859
mandate of the Apex court in "Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna", (1980) 1 SCC 98. Besides this,
reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction period of the under-trials
should be as short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation
and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of
the petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon
the order of this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as
"Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab" decided on
02.03.2023, wherein, while referring Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the
criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the
same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the
course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in
that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other
pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial
of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all
probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the
concession of bail.
5. Decision:
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail under Section 439
Cr.P.C. on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098859
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
02.08.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
