Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 14 August, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105688
CRM-M-16340-2024 -1-
204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-16340-2024 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 14.08.2024
JASWINDER KAUR .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. V.K. Pujara, Advocate for
Mr. Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section
439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.84, dated
31.05.2023, under Section 304 IPC, registered at Police Station Sidhwan
Bet, District Ludhiana Rural.
2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in
the FIR as under:-
"Statement of Rano Bai wife of Late Hartej Singh son of
Narain Singh resident of Chak Kanian Kalan, PS
Dharmkot, District Moga, Age 46 Years, Mob. No.
83606-72831. I hereby state that I am resident of above
mentioned address and I do labour work. I have 05
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105688
children. Out of them 03 are daughters and my all 03
daughters are married. My elder son is Jaswinder Singh
@ Bittu age about 24 years and younger son is Gurpreet
Singh age about 20 years. Marriage of my son Jaswinder
Singh was solemnized about 05 years ago with Swarna
Rani daughter of Lal Singh son of Kartar Singh resident
of Bagge Ke, District Fazilka. My son Jaswinder Singh
@ Bittu was addicted to drugs. My son Jaswinder Singh
@ Bittu used to buy Heroin from Sona Singh son of
Dayal Singh son of Uttam Singh, Jaswinder Kaur wife of
Amarjit Singh @ Ambu, Charanjit Kaur wife of Dayal
Singh, Jyoti Kaur wife of Sona Singh residents of
Sherewal and their son-in-law Jagtar Singh @ Suba
resident of Sainchan, Near Sultanopur, Current R/o
Sherewal quite often. We had asked them many times not
to sell Heroin to my son and we had also asked our son
Jaswinder Singh not to consume drugs. Yesterday dt.
30.05.2023 at time about 7:00 PM my son Jaswinder
Singh Bittu had gone on his motorcycle No. PB29-D-
5148 Bajaj Platina to buy Heroin from above mentioned
persons. At time about 9:00 PM we received information
that my son Jaswinder Singh is lying at Village Sherewal
near the motor of Kulwant Singh under the influence of
drugs and his motorcycle is standing at the bank of river.
When I alongwith respectable persons went to the spot
then I saw that my son Jaswinder Singh @ Bittu was
conscious and struggling for life. When I asked him about
this then he said to me that, "I had gone to buy Heroin
from Sona Singh etc. but instead of Heroin they have
given me some chemical drug and after consuming it my
health deteoriated." After saying this he became
unconscious. We were taking him to Civil Hospital
Jagraon in unconscious state but my son died before
reaching hospital. We placed his dead body at Mortuary,
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105688
Civil Hospital Jagraon and being late night we could not
come at police station and went to our house. Today
along with my brother-in-law (jeth) Malkit Singh son of
Narain Singh resident of Chak Kanian Kalan were going
to police station and you met at Bus Stand Tihara.
Statement recorded to you, heard, is correct. Necessary
legal action be taken against above mentioned Sona
Singh etc. Sd/- RTI/- Rano Bai. Statement correct, Sd/-
LTI/-Malkit Singh. Attested, Sd/- Rajvarinderpal Singh
AS Incharge PP Gidderwindi PS Sidhwan Bet Date
31.05.2023."
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a compromise
has been entered into by the parties to the present petition i.e. petitioner and
the complainant. He further contends that the co-accused of the petitioner
have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide
orders dated 31.07.2024 for Sona Singh, dated 08.05.2024 for Jagtar Singh
@ Subba and dated 08.05.2024 for Charanjit Kaur @ Charan Kaur passed in
CRM-M-30385-2024, CRM-M-16529-2024 and CRM-M-3117-2024
respectively, copies of the same have been produced before this Court by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the
custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record.
He seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the son of the
complainant namely Jaswinder Singh @ Bittu was addicted to heroin and
used to buy the same from the present petitioner and his co-accused but
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105688
instead of giving heroin to him they supplied some other chemical drug, post
consumption of which the son of the complainant died.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 03 months
and 13 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; co-accused
of the petitioner have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide
orders dated 31.07.2024 for Sona Singh, dated 08.05.2024 for Jagtar Singh
@ Subba and dated 08.05.2024 for Charanjit Kaur @ Charan Kaur passed in
CRM-M-30385-2024, CRM-M-16529-2024 and CRM-M-3117-2024
respectively; both the parties have entered into compromise in addition to
the fact that challan stands presented on 18.03.2024 and charges having been
framed on 29.05.2024 also out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, none has
been examined till date, which is suffice for this Court to infer that the
conclusion of trial will take a long time for which the petitioner cannot be
detained behind the bars for an indefinite period.
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 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
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105688
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 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
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105688
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
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105688
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 and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of
reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined 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.
5. DECISION:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby directed to be released on regular bail on her furnishing bail and
surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105688
In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
14.08.2024 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
