Jagdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 1426 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 January, 2024

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008419




                                                           2024:PHHC:008419
CRM-M-35955-2023                                              -1-

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

109                                                     CRM-M-35955-2023
                                         Date of Decision : January 23, 2024

JAGDEEP SINGH
                                                                  .....Petitioner

                                    VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                               .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:    Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate
            for the complainant.

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.145 dated 25.12.2022, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 506, 458,

34, 325, 326 IPC, registered at P.S. Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER

2. The allegations against the present petitioner, as unfolds

from the FIR, are that the present petitioner gave two gandasa blows

from its reverse side, on the head of the father of complainant, after

entering into the Haveli of the complainant with an intention to kill him.

The injury on the head is stated to be grievous in nature. It is further

transpired from the investigation that subsequently the injury attributed to

1 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008419

2024:PHHC:008419

the present petitioner was declared as dangerous to life, which invites the

penal provisions of Section 307 IPC.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his asking for the

hereinabove extracted relief, has made the following submissions:-

(i) That an altercation took place on a trivial issue that the petitioner has infact blocked the way of the house of the complainant, which led to scuffle between two neighbours;

(ii) The petitioner is behind bars since 22.3.2023 and he is not involved in any other case.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL

4. Per contra, the learned State counsel has vociferously

opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner, on the ground that the

petitioner has given two 'gandasa' blows on the head of Satinder Kumar,

who is the father of the complainant and the injury was subsequently

declared as dangerous to life and, therefore, he is not entitled for the grant

of relief of regular bail. Learned State counsel on instructions imparted

to him by ASI Rajesh Kumar, submits that the present petitioner was

arrested way back on 22.3.2023 and after completion of investigation,

final report was filed way back on 8.4.2024 and the learned trial Court

concerned framed charges on 28.8.2023. He also submits that out of total

21 witnesses cited by the prosecution, none has been examined so far.

Further, the learned State counsel does not dispute the fact that the

petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case.

ANALYSIS

2 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008419

2024:PHHC:008419

5. "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.

6. 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.

7. 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 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

3 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008419

2024:PHHC:008419

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 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

4 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008419

2024:PHHC:008419

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 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

5 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008419

2024:PHHC:008419

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."

8. 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 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

6 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008419

2024:PHHC:008419

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.

9. This Court has examined the instant petition on the

touchstone of the hereinabove extracted settled legal principle(s) of law

and is of the considered opinion that the instant petition is amenable for

being allowed.

10. The reason for forming the above inference emanates from

the factum that:- (i) an altercation took place inter-se the parties on a

trivial issue, that the petitioner has infact blocked the way to the house of

the complainant, which led to scuffle between two neighbours, (ii) The

petitioner is behind bars since 22.3.2023 and he is not involved in any

other case.

FINAL ORDER

11. Considering the allegations against the petitioner and the

incarceration suffered by him and he is behind the bars since 22.3.2023

and the trial is yet to commence and the co-accused, to whom also the

injuries are attributed, has already extended the regular bail by a co-

ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 1.6.2023, passed in CRM-

M-12138-2023, this Court deems it 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 bail on furnishing of

7 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008419

2024:PHHC:008419

bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial

Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

12. However, it is clarified that if in future, the petitioner is

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)
January 23, 2024                               JUDGE
ajay-1
           Whether speaking/reasoned.         :      Yes/No
           Whether Reportable.                :      Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008419

8 of 8