Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rahul Kumar Alias Tony vs State Of Punjab on 13 August, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104983
CRM-M-38290-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
229 CRM-M-38290-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 13.08.2024
RAHUL KUMAR ALIAS TONY ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
***
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.77 dated 25.04.2023, under Sections
302/365/323/148/149 of the IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Sadar
Ludhiana, District Ludhiana.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR read as under :-
'Statement of Jaswant Singh son of Ram Agya Singh,
resident of Village Basbati, Police Station Sahiara, Bihar, now
residents of Tenant of Manoj Dhir's house, Village Dugri, Police
Station Dugri, Ludhiana, aged about 42 years. Mobile No.
81461-69410. Stated that I am residing at the above mentioned
address along with my family and I am doing work in Jai Bharat
Foods Atta Chakki, Mohalla Deep Nagar, Near Rode Railway
Crossing, Ludhiana. I have two son i.e. elder son Ujjwal Kumar
aged 18 years and younger to him is Aniket aged about 12 years.
We are residing in the house of Manoj Dhir on rent. On
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104983
23.04.2023, my son Ujjwal Kumar was at home at about 08:00
PM, then the friend of Ujjwal Kumar namely Amit Kumar,
resident of Dugri, Ludhiana and Samma, resident of Green City,
Dhandra Road, Ludhiana came to our house on the motorcycle
and took away my son Ujjwal to Dugri by say regarding seeing
the fair. My son Ujjwal did not come back at home, then we
searched enough for Ujjwal upto late night, but he did not meet.
On 24.04.2023 at about 08:30 AM, Amit Kumar by making
phone call from phone No. 89689-67870 on my phone No.
81461-69410 told me that Ujjwal is admitted at Civil Hospital,
Then I and my brother Jaiwant Singh, resident of Tandon Nagar,
Jassian Road, Waddi Haibowal, Ludhiana reached at Civil
Hospital, Ludhiana, then Ujjwal was in unconscious state in the
hospital. Our talk could not take place with him. At that time,
Amit had since gone away to his house. My son during the
course of treatment had expired at about 11:00 AM at Civil
Hospital, Ludhiana, then we searched Amit Kumar who found
and disclosed that when all three of them were returning to his
house at Green City, Dhandra Road on the motorcycle of Samma
after attending a 'Fair' and were standing on Dhandra Road
near Green City, then in an Innova vehicle bearing No. PB-10-
EC-0097, 5/6 youth persons came, who encircled us and after
catching hold of me and Ujjwal Kumar had started giving
beatings. Samma had fled away from the spot. These persons
gave beatings to us with sticks, baseballs and after lifting me
and Ujjwal had loaded in the above mentioned vehicle and also
lifted our motorcycle and after bringing us in Mohalla Roop
Nagar, they gave severe beatings to us in a vacant plot, the boys
who gave beatings to us, their names as Akhlesh, Arvind sons of
Rajinder Pal, Tony son of Sune Pal Narayan, Bharat, Golu,
Ramayan, residents of Mohalla Roop Nagar, Dhandra Road,
Ludhiana, Sidhant resident of Satjot Nagar, Dheeraj son of Brij
bhan, resident of Dev Colony and along with them there was 5/6
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104983
other unknown boys, whom I can identify on coming present
before me. When these boys had been giving beatings to us, then
they had been calling each other by taking their names. With the
beatings given to us, blood had been oozing from my head,
mouth and nose and blood had also been oozing from the head,
mouth and nose of Ujjwal and our condition had become too
much deteriorated, due to which Akhlesh and Arvind and other
companions after sitting us on a motor cycle Apache bearing
No. PB- 10-EV-5161 of white colour and on our motorcycle
bearing No. PB-10- HX-3032, Sidhant and Dhiraj had thrown us
again in injured condition at Green City, Dhandra Road and had
also thrown our motorcycle bearing above mentioned
registration number and they of their own by calling Ambulance
108 had sent for treatment at Civil Hospital Ludhiana by saying
regarding accident, from where after giving first aid to me, I was
sent to home and Ujjwal was admitted. After coming to know
about this entire fact, I have been kept on waiting for my
brothers and relatives, due to which on account of being odd
hours in the night, I could not come to give information. Today I
along with my nephew Bhanu Singh son of Arjan Singh had been
coming to the police station in order to lodge the information.
You have met near the gate of Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. The
statement has been got recorded before you, heard, the same is
correct. Legal action may be taken against the above mentioned
persons. LTI Jaswant Singh above. Statement verified by Bhanu
Singh Sd/- Bhanu Singh, Sd/- Harmesh Singh, SI, Incharge
Police Post Basant Avenue, Police Station Sadar Ludhiana,
dated 25.04.2023. POLICE PROCEEDING: On 24.04.2023,
myself SI was present at the police post, then MHC Manjinder
Singh told that information has been received from Police Post,
Civil Hospital, Ludhiana that the death of Ujjwal son of Jaswant
Singh, resident of Dugri, Ludhiana on account of road accident
has taken place at Civil Hospital during the course of treatment,
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104983
on which myself St along with St Sukhwinder Singh No.
2370/Ludhiana, Head Constable Balwinder Singh No.
3393/Ludhiana and PHG Murta Singh No. 20019 in connection
with proceeding after reaching at Civil Hospital Ludhiana
obtained Ruqa No. CR 9415/23, dated 24.04.2023 and ruqa No.
5246/23, dated 24.04.2023 in respect of Ujjwal and Ruqa No.
9414/23 dated 24.04.2023 in respect of Amit and the dead body
of deceased Ujjwal was deposited in the Mortuary at Civil
Hospital, on account of non- meeting of heirs, action could not
be set into motion, on which today myself SI along with along
with SI Sukhwinder Singh No. 2370/Ludhiana, Constable Head
Balwinder Singh No. 3393/Ludhiana and PHG Murta Singh No.
20019 reached at the gate of Civil Hospital Ludhiana in
connection with the proceeding, where the above mentioned
Jaswant Singh along with Bhanu Singh met, who got recorded
his above mentioned statement before myself SI, whose
statement was got typed according to his version word by word
on my private laptop through SI Sukhwinder Singh, after taking
print out of which through laser printer, who after hearing his
statement, after admitting the same to be correct appended his
left thumb impression under his statement and Bhanu Singh
verified the statement, to which myself SI attested. From the
contents of the statement, the commission of offence under
sections 302, 365, 323, 148, 149 IPC is made out. The present
statement regarding registration of case against Akhlesh, Arvind
sons of Rajinder Pal, Tony son of Sune Pal Narayan, Bharat,
Golu, Ramayan, residents of Mohalla Roop Nagar, Dhandra
Road, Ludhiana, Sidhant resident of Satjot Nagar, Dheeraj son
of Brij bhan, resident of Dev Colony and 5/6 other unknown
boys for the above mentioned offence is hereby sent to the police
station through PHG Murta Singh No. 20019. After registering
the case, file number may be informed. Current special reports
may be issued. Information may be given to control room.
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104983
Myself SI along with companion officials accompanied with the
complainant becomes busy in the investigation of the case. Sd/-
Harmesh Singh, SI, Incharge Police Post Basant Avenue, Police
Station Sadar Ludhiana. Dated 25.04.2023. Today in the area of
Civil Hospital Ludhiana AT 1:25 PM. Today upon receipt of the
above mentioned statement at the police station the above
mentioned case for the above mentioned offence against
Akhlesh, Arvind sons of Rajinder Pal, Tony son of Sune Pal
Narayan, Bharat, Golu, Ramayan, residents of Mohalla Roop
Nagar, Dhandra Road, Ludhiana, Sidhant resident of Satjot
Nagar, Dhiraj son of Brij bhan, resident of Dev Colony and 5/6
unknown boys. Information has been given to the control room.
After preparing special reports, the same are being sent through
coming CT Surinderpal Singh No. 1943/Ludhiana to the Ld.
Area Magistrate as well as Senior Officers. The statement along
with copy of FIR through concerned PHG is being sent to the
concerned SI at the spot for the purpose of investigation."
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and neither he
was named in the present FIR nor any specific role has been attributed to
him except recovery of baseball used in the incident. He submits that the
petitioner is in custody for almost 1 year and 3 months and no fruitful
purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars as
conclusion of trial would take long time as out of total 20 Prosecution
Witnesses, none has been examined so far.
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
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104983
the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record.
According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year, 2 months and
26 days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the
petitioner is also involved in two more FIRs but is not in a position to
controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He
informs the Court that in the present FIR challan stands presented on
24.07.2023 and charges stands framed on 01.08.2024.
4. Analysis
From the above case it can be culled out that the petitioner
has already suffered sufficient period in custody i.e. 1 year, 2 months and
26 day, neither he was named in the present FIR nor any specific role has
been attributed to him except recovery of baseball used in the incident.
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 24.07.2023 and
charges stands framed on 01.08.2024, out of 20 prosecution witnesses,
none has 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
solve no purpose.
Reliance can be placed 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
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104983
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
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
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104983
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.
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.
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104983
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
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 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
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104983
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/her furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of
the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
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
13.08.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
10 of 10
